Pentax K-1 II Review: A worthy upgrade?

The Pentax K-1 Mark II is a supremely weather-sealed, tough-built full-frame camera with a 36MP stabilized sensor. Billed as more a refinement of its predecessor than a replacement, the K-1 II gains a new hand-held Pixel Shift mode and sees improvements made to its AF Tracking algorithm - it also has a new pre-processor. Unfortunately, our testing reveals this additional processor applies full-time noise reduction to Raw files resulting in inferior image quality to that of its predecessor at higher ISO values.

Key features:

36.2MP full-frame CMOS sensor with no anti-aliasing filter

5-axis sensor-shift image stabilization

100% pentaprism viewfinder with 0.70x magnification

33-point AF system (25 cross-type)

Updated AF Tracking algorithm

New hand-held Pixel Shift mode

Extensive weather-sealing

1/200 sec flash sync speed

14-bit Raw recording (DNG or PEF)

Built-in GPS with electro-magnetic compass and Astrotracer function

4.4 fps continuous shooting (6.5 fps in APS-C crop mode)

1080/30p video

Wi-Fi

The K-1 II faces stiff competition from other full frame models at this price point, many of which out-spec it across the board. But for landscape and adventure shooters, you'd be hard-pressed to find a full frame camera with as many useful and unique features, like built-in GPS, an Astrotracer mode for night sky photography, sensor shift technology, and LED lights on the body (to assist in the dark).

Over the course of several weeks, we've put the K-1 II through its paces in both the field and in our test lab. Read on to see how it performed and how it stacks up as a whole against the competition.

What's new and how it compares

Here's what's new in the K-1 II plus how it compares to existing models from other companies.

@ Class A I think it has always been the 24-70.Thinking back to the start I can remember that they used a different lens on the DR range test to what they used on the standard scene test. So I don't think it has been changed edited going back to my down loads I found the DR save to my computer on the 9 and it used the 24-70

@ Class no need for apologies but we don't need anymore witch hunting going on as it is ;)It would be interesting to find out what happened with the iso where we did see a change, but we have to remember that the evidence that was put forth was screen grabs using unknown methods and was the image fully DL for the K1mkd2 shot before the screen grab.

As far as the file size DPR's and how they display the image properties I have had images showing data that was not the camera that took the image.

@left eye I hope they won't. Puts less pressure on manufacturers to get it right. Like saying "oh, you messed up. no problem, we'll just wait for you to fix it".

However, reshooting because of the corner softness of this lens is another matter. And maybe it makes sense to shoot with the same lens as the K-1 review. Although, Pentaxians responded to that review saying the 77 should not be used for pixel peeping image quality assessments...

@DPReviewMay I propose a test with which you should be able to ascertain whether the K-1 II really "eats detail"?

I do not believe that the current comparisons allow any kind of conclusion.

If you could gain access to a K-1 (or Ricoh will provide a firmware version that allows disabling of the accelerator processing), you could perform image stacking (say 20 frames) of a "noisy scene" with both K-1 and K-1 II and then see which of the two image stacks delivers more detail.

According to your current assumption of destructive RAW baking in the case of the K-1 II, image stacking should not be able to retrieve details that are only seemingly are lost in the noise of a single image. The K-1, however, should support the retrieval of such details as its noise should average out, thus increasing SNR.

This test should yield better insights into how destructive the K-1 II processing is, if it is at all.

Personally, I expect a destructive component and wish Ricoh would give us a choice.

DPR is probably too busy to waste much their time to follow up various different noise cheating scenarios, or details eating scenarios, depending on whatever tweaks.

For example, unlike Pentax, Fuji X transforms their X cameras into almost new models with every firmware update, but even then, DPR wouldn't want to afford the time to do a re-test every time a firmware was released.

I'd rather like to see DPR to focus now on more interesting brands/models with their new stuff. I think that the K-1 II has to be written off, the main message still being- the handheld sensor shifting being a failure- nothing else of interest- therefore, no reason was given to assume, that the negative trend can be stopped for the medium to long term future.

I have written the K-1 II off, and Pentax FF along with it, so I'd prefer DPR to turn their resources towards interesting stuff from other brands, which interests much more readers than just a small bunch of die-hard Pentax fanboys.

Pentax annoys some people. Is that because it offers 95% of what other cameras do, plus things such as astrotracer (pixel shift and other things, I'll pass) that other cameras don't do, for half the price? That's annoying.

@pentaust "Detail (resolution) is measured with MTF charts."That's one way. Jim Kasson does power spectrums (this is mathematically related to the visual 2D Fourier Transforms I do). For example:https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61127972

However, taking lenses aside, the noise cheating itself has been proven statistically with evidence pictures, by bclaff. I believe, that flat but noisy patches are used, where the flaws of Pentax primes shouldn't have mattered anyway.

This is a verified fact with secured evidences.

So, the lens talks seem like an attempt to deviate from that original RAW blurring issue?

For cameras, which are good and get a corresponding review, there's probably not all to much to discuss about it afterwards.

For K-1 II, a not-so-good camera with many flaws and a corresponding review, that meets die-hard fanboys. This then always leads to a sh*t storm and 1000+ comments. This is only natural and easily predictable.

@dpthoughts, looking at your post history it looks like you are on a personal crusade here.

It seems that every message that raises mere suspicion that there is something not done right with the review will invite a response from yours denigrating the poster and trying to attribute it to some Pentax wrongdoings.

I wonder if there are any differences in the perception of this issue as a problem or not depending on whether the commenter used film for a long time before going digital? After all, long time film users (many of whom may well have used or even first learned photography on a Pentax) are/were used to the "noise" of film grain, and so may be more tolerant of digital noise, and would rather have that than a reduction in sharpness from noise reduction uncontrollable by the user. Newer users, and perhaps the designers at Pentax who made the algorithmic decision, may think that less digital noise is favorable.

There was also a forum comment here on DPR (can't find it, I think within the last few months, I think but am not sure by Jim Kasson or ProfHankD), on film resolution below grain dimensions, that could have relevance to differences in attitude.

We likely now have more comments than orders for this camera; and all to argue which camera produces the best looking but still unusable image at ISO 12500. If one’s desire will be to produce a lot of unusable high ISO images that they would be ashamed to show anyone it would be wise to continue researching this issue. If not, just buy the camera your heart tells you to buy and enjoy it. I have a D850, thoroughly enjoy it, have never tried it at ISO 12500, and could care less how it stacks up against other cameras at those levels. This will be the last Pentax if even Pentaxians take pause. They need to sell cameras. My advice—update your K-1 and purchase your K-1mkII.

This should be required reading. There's a point when too much information leads to paralysis of analysis. I don't have a dog in this fight but I wouldn't hesitate for a microsecond to use the K-1 II for important work -- it's a fine tool, as are almost all modern cameras. And here's some required listening to reinforce the point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvrupRQD44I

Heard such things for years. Gear doesn't matter blah blah blah. But then these photographers will then use expensive DSLRs instead of a cell phone or some cheaper camera.

I shoot weddings for a living and I need reliable AF. I get a higher keeper rate with my A7 III than any of my older cameras. My A7 was pretty horrible when trying to shoot moving objects. With the A7 III and eye AF it's far easier to nail the focus.

@Brandon : you wrote " My A7 was pretty horrible when trying to shoot moving objects." Thanks for acknowledging this fact. This is strange because until the A7 III was available, you would strongly deny that the A7 has poor autofocus (much worse than DSLR, actually).

A camera is a tool that can solve problems for you. I consider good AF to be very important because, unlike noise, that’s something you can’t fix in post. And that’s also why I would not be comfortable spending 2000 euros on this camera.

The AF is totally dependent on circumstances. Tracking is not that great but general AF is perfectly fine. I don't think I ever claimed it was better than DSLRs cause its not true. Its a match for cheaper DSLRs but higher end ones will be better. The A7 II is much superior in this regard.

starbase218, noise can be fixed to a degree only. ISO 1600 shots in my K200D are much worse than ISO 6400 shots in my K-30 or K-1 II . After NR, the K200D shots lose so much detail as to become blurry. And of course at ISO 1600, I was forced to use way too long exposures for night photography, which caused blurry exposures that simply could not be corrected in post. So, IMO, high ISO / low noise performance is very important.

blur from photographer's motion is just about impossible to correct in post.The K-1 II stabilizer does extremely well in this area, also.

AF performance is also important, as a blurry shot is unrecoverable in post. But of course, there are different degrees of blur. If the blur is minor enough, sharpening in post can also make up for it. If focus is completely missed - say, in a different area at way different distance), then of course the shot can't be recovered.

Bur from minor AF mishit can be made up in post if you don't need the full resolution and not doing crops. Blur from major AF error means lost shot.

Same for blur from photographer's motion with low shutter speeds. After a few tries, I can do a handheld 2s exposure on my K-1 II and get a perfectly usable shot for web display. You would have no idea it was a 2s exposure. Full HD picture is slightly blurred. 4K a bit more blurred. At 36MP (full resolution), look 1:1, the same shot is horrible and unusable.

Noise can be corrected in post too, but only if the sensor is good enough in the first place, and also only to a degree.

Personally, for my favorite kind of photography - night and and static subjects - I value the low noise / high ISO sensor much more than fast AF.

That said, the K-1 II AF is dramatically improved over my K-30. I'm sure it's inferior to other bodies that have more PDAF points. MILCs have way more CDAF points, but I hate shooting stills with a screen or EV due to the delay. Also hate touch screens. For me it is a huge plus that K-1 II does not have a touch screen.

starbase218,Another thing to consider is depth of field and aperture size. Wide apertures have the smallest depth of field. If your AF isn't perfectly calibrated, that may result in slightly blurry shots. One way to reduce this problem is to stop the lens down. With most lenses, this generally produces sharper images, with larger depth of field. The problem is, of course, is that it puts corresponding restrictions on your shutter speed. If your sensor is good enough that you can shoot at very high ISO, then stopping down the lens becomes much more acceptable. I didn't have this option with my K200D. Tripod was really the only way to get decent night shots with that camera. Much different story with the K-30 and K-1 II . This aspect should not be underestimated.

Of course, if you are photographing sports with fast-moving subjects, tracking AF becomes the limiting factor, but you can still compensate to a degree by stopping down if your tracking AF isn't perfect for your subject.

@dpthoughts - Oh yes! It's a game changer for portraits. I had eye AF on my older A7rII but it was only available in AF-S mode not in continuous AF and the speed was something like 1/10th the speed of the A7 III eye AF.

The A7 III just locks on and has a much better rate of perfectly focused shots compared to any of my previous cameras.

Aside from all the debate about the alleged altered comparison images, there are a couple of claims within the review which I find simply inaccurate. In the comparison part of the conclusion, we have this statement:

"Sony a7 III In terms of image quality performance, the K-1 II has a higher-res sensor, giving its Raw files an advantage at base ISO, but Sony Raw files also don't progressively lose detail as the ISO increases."

Sony files do lose detail as the ISO increases, just as files from any camera do. The implication is that the A7 III has better image quality than the Pentax at high ISO. It simply doesn't. The Pentax has lower noise and more detail.

@jonby. "lose detail as the ISO increases, just as files from any camera do."I'm unsure you you are judging "detail" but under normal circumstances no camera loses detail as the ISO setting is increased.

"under normal circumstances no camera loses detail as the ISO setting is increased" In theory shouldn't lose details at higher ISO. Practically, and without any noise reduction applied, noise reduces the perception of details.

Higher ISO, more noise. More noise, lower signal-to-noise ratio. Depends how you define "detail", but by most people's take noise obscures detail, i.e. the detail is already lost even before NR is applied. Ideally NR just removes the noise and replaces it with average (detail-free) signal. In practice some additional detail is always lost because the algorithms cannot perfectly discern signal from noise.

@Richard Murdey. You present reasoning for why it might be so but no evidence that is in in fact so. I agree that Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) would be important if you were to attempt to quantify "detail" but then it will depend on how much contrast your test target or scene has. I suspect that when SNR gets poor enough to affect "detail" the image is unacceptable anyway so the issue is moot.

It's not so much evidence as it is the definition of "signal" and "noise". If you are taking self-serving definition of "loss of detail" as "the effects of noise reduction" then one does of course ends up with your conclusion ...

By it's very nature Noise Reduction (NR) always smooths out data and reduces "detail". The assertion I challenge is that raising the ISO setting, which is *not* NR, results in the loss of detail. If so, that loss of detail would arise from a lower Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) and not NR. I further assert that by the time SNR is low enough to affect detail that image (or area of the image in the deep shadows) is no longer photographically relevant; so it's a moot point. Perhaps you can cite *evidence* to the contrary.

While I agree that saying “the camera has worse image quality than its predecessor” is too blunt a statement, the claim that the Pentax files have more detail does not hold either. If smoothing is applied, how can you gain detail? The answer is you can’t. You lose detail that you can never recover. It is a trade-off.

With advances in machine learning and AI, we might soon see software that can denoise more intelligently. Because if we can see it ourselves, there is something in there. In which case the RAW files out of this camera will not be optimal.

I have looked at the K-1 II vs K-1 images in detail, at all kinds of ISO. Except for the parts which have optical lens aberrations, visible at ISO 100, the K-1 II looks better to me in almost about every case. That is to say, there is both less noise in the K-1 II, and just as much if not more relevant detailed signal.

I would take this ISO 12,800 K-1 II image any day of the week over the K-1 due to color error. I don't think anyone would think of publishing the K-1 v1 image without doing some processing for this color error. Same for the D850 image. The 645Z has more detail than K-1 and K-1 II, but also more color error than K-1 II.

To be quite fair, at ISO 100, the K-1 II picture looks much better than K-1 also. This must be one of the few parts of the image where the lens is better in the K-1 II test than the K-1 v1 test.

We know for certain that the K-1ii routes the raw signal through the accelerator processor before the data is saved, for ISO640 and above. Because of dpreview testing shenanigans, we're not certain of the effect on IQ vs. the K-1. Certainly there is less noise, especially color noise, but what if anything is lost as a result is as yet wide open for speculation. I tend to think it on balance isn't so bad, but I am not comfortable with Ricoh removing the option of turning it off.

"I wonder how many orders were not placed, cancelled or postponed due to this review."I wondered that, so started a poll a few days ago - not specifically about this camera (although I did mention it) but about the affect of a 'poor review' here. People's definition of a 'poor review' may vary etc. etc. and the poll is still open so I've no idea how it will look eventually - at the time of writing this it showed a reasonable proportion would not buy if the camera had a 'poor review,' and of course sample size, not the right questions (7 people said none of the options suited them when there were just over 100 votes and that number will rise) and so on... still, I think reviews here could affect buying habits: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61119660

The a7III isn't only the superior camera in all other respects, but benefits from the fact that it has access to good lenses (including good primes), whereas Pentax can do only engineer bad primes, which was the other take-away from the test scenes of the K-1 I and K-1 II.

In general, It doesn't make sense to get yourself 36MP and tell your mom "look mom, now I got 36 MP". You also need lenses from a brand, which are capable of exploiting that. Which Pentax can't do, obviously (except for the very image center maybe).

dptroll,The A7 III will still cost you way more than the K-1 II when you consider lenses.The takeaway from the K-1 II DPR tests is that optics were bad, but it's unclear whether it was a bad lens copy, or all are this way, or incorrect alignment/focus. The non-studio shots from DPR don't look so bad even in corners. Hard to say.

The Sony lens prices are just way higher than Pentax in general. I shudder to think what my collection of lenses would cost in Sony mount. More than the camera, for sure.

Sony lenses are not just their high-end G-Master series (Sony's counterpart to Sigma ART or Zeiss OTUS). Look at their affordable 85mm 1.8 portrait lens for example. It got a test at e.g. Photozone (now OpticalLimits.com), which Pentax lenses could only dream of.

The other thing is the outstanding lens adaptability. Including even Pentax old lenses, if someone was keen.

But the autofocus adapters (e.g. Sigma MC-11) are so mature by now at their latest firmware iterations, that with Sony, the use of any Canon lens has all AF functionality (not only talking about Sigma's Canon mount lenses, but also Canons own lenses).

Or, look at the new compact Tamron 28-75 zoom, for native Sony mount, that got raving initial reviews as well, but is very affordable.

With Pentax we have the problem, that both Sigma and Tamron had abandoned all hope regarding Pentax' medium-term future, so that they stopped releasing their latest&greatest lenses for Pentax a couple of years ago (Sigma 3-4 years, Tamron even many more years ago).

The K-1 (mark I) didn't change that, because already that was a failure in the market.

The problem is not so much the mark II's review failure alone, it is already the mark I's market failure.

The mark II with its handheld pixel shift failure will not be able to make up for the mark I's market failure.

That's $860 in lenses. What can I get for an A7 III for that price ?I'm still looking for something ultra-wide that is decent under 28mm and won't blow my budget. Seems like only the Samyang 14mm for $280 would work, but I'm reluctant, but it is MF.

While I know the lenses you mention have good reputation, I don't think they are in my budget.

I don't require the fastest / heaviest glass. It may very well be that I'm not fully utilizing the 36MP.

But even if I go for a 24MP A7 III that costs the same $2000 as the K1-II, how much would it cost me in lenses to build a comparable collection for a Sony camera ?

That's the problem. With Pentax, in the used market, you only have a lens museum of cheap junk lenses at hand, so that you are even forced to use APSC lenses on full frame, if you are poor.

But none of these lenses don't make any sense on any 36 MP FF camera. This is more a scenario for 6 to 12 MP cameras? Are Pentaxians so deperate that they even consider ancient super zooms (Sigma 28-300) for their K-1?

Again, 36 MP is not about telling mom "look mom, now I have 36 MP".36 MP is about spending maybe thousands for prime lenses which actually can resolve that, even outside the very frame center. Which Pentax is just not capable of making.

If you don't have that money, then 24 Megapixels are the sweet spot for everything.

Also, if you believe I bought a K-1 II solely because of its 36MP, you are wrong. It had much more to do with having more stops of light due to 35mm sensor, and being able to shoot at high ISO with limited noise, combined with a stabilizer to give me handholdable shutter speeds without having to carry a tripod around. The largest print I ever did so far was 20x30 from my 10MP K200D. It looks just fine. I'm sure I will do larger prints some day, or prints of crops. Not yet.

I know that Sigma 28-300 is ancient, but at $60 (was $55 + shipping actually), it was hard to pass up. I have yet to try it on my K-1 II. I have taken a look at the quality of my APS-C lenses in crop vs FF mode, in terms of both vignetting and resolution. Most are doing just fine. My test subjects involve a bookshelf at home, and it is very easy to tell if something becomes soft as titles would become difficult to read.

I didn't say 36MP was irrelevant, just that it wasn't my main reason for buying a K-1 II . Can you read ?

I have looked at the test images from A7 III vs K-1 II - the sharp parts, and I prefer the K-1 II images, BSI sensor and dual-gain or not.

As for junk, I think your mind has been seriously polluted. My Pentax lenses are good enough for me, at a price I can afford. What do I care if Sony lenses that cost 3-4x more are marginally, or even significantly better ? The K-1 II PDAF is good enough for me, also, actually very much improved over my K-30.

Pentax lenses mounted on a Sony body would still not get any AF. Focus peaking helps primarily for video, in my experience, not for stills. I never shoot stills looking at a screen if I can help it, only OVF, which Sony lacks.

I have a GX85 with an EVF, and in some situations, such as low shutter speed, its EVF is far worse. Try doing a 2" exposure and composing your shot when you have to wait 2" for your viewfinder to update.

Fortunately, I only bought the GX85 for video, not for stills. But it gives me a taste of the problems an EVF can have for shooting stills, and the drawbacks if ever went to Sony mirrorless.

The only situation I ever shoot on a screen is on my cell phone, because that's the only way, and only if I don't have another camera nearby.

I don't think there is any point in continuing the discussion here. You have strongly biased opinions against Pentax. You don't make any effort to hide it. You simply ignore posters' points and price point requirements. You are also not civil.

The optical performance is just poor on 36mp outside the very center.For that, $800 is way to overpriced. This should be a $200 lens by todays standards.

And as designated in the "Limited" series title, it suffers from limited quality control efforts, which was also evident yet another time in the review. This is just an old cheap lens sold expensively.

The Sony FE 85mm 1.8 is with $600 even -$200 cheaper than the Pentax 77mm 1.8, but the Sony is a much better lens overall, even tough it is cheaper.

This is probably the last Pentax camera review on this site, for various market realities reasons, with K-3 II replacement not in sight (it is a miracle DPR even bothered, it has more to do with great Pentax history than the present market share), so this vitriol and conspiracy theories hurled at DPR certainly will not help. The K-1 was mainly a (parting?) gift to Pentaxians with sizable legacy glass collections, to enjoy them in their intended FOV, and maybe for occasional outside Pentax community sales or two. The K-1 II is just an attempt to prolong the ride. We should appreciate any test DPR gives us (and comparison images) , you can make your own conclusions from it, but don't attack the site for their opinion if it differs from yours, and accuse them of bias, it really makes no sense considering how small the Pentax market share already is. The future alternative will be to rely on other "more objective" test sites, where most all camera reviews turn out positive and glowing.

Depends how we see it. If the cameras evaluated would have the exact same look (same buttons etc), and be without brand, there wouldn't be so much difference in the evaluation result. Here, tiny differences are magnified like hell. In practice, show the photos to the public , even printed XXL without telling what camera brand they come from and it'll appreciate the photos for their content. Already , most people can't tell the difference between two sensor formats (Fuji will tell you there is no difference between apsc and ff), and here the conclusion of the review is about the huge difference between K1 II and K1 and compared to other camera models of the same format from other brands. People definitely need to keep their feet on the ground instead of making those tiny differences look so obvious like the nose in the middle of the face.

Interesting idea, about the 'last' test here. I agree, that it's not so easy to find good tests of Pentax gear and appreciate the coverage at dpreview.And if you see the amount of comments this has generated until now - this is a clear win! A lot of clicks, and hell yeah, out of boredom and interest I even reread the KP review, and stumbled upon some other accessory gear article, finding it so interesting that I followed the link to Amazon and bought it... Haha

" The K-1 was mainly a (parting?) gift to Pentaxians" . I don't know any company making new products for donating gift. If you believe the K1 was a gift, you may be working for a SOE or non for profit organization or anyway have no idea about companies making products for profit.

It was a figure of speech, you still have to pay for K-1, but just a fact it appeared I see as a gift, considering the Pentax position in the market, and I am grateful for it. I would have bought almost anything with a FF sensor and K-mount in it, for my collection of legacy glass, and I am probably not alone in this. I leave the pixel peeping excursions to the Master Photographers, who seem to be in great supply around here. As far as the "company for profit" part goes, Ricoh is not running it like it is in it for the money, it is running it more like a hobby enterprise right now, and I respect them for that (alternatives are big investment, or shutting down).

This thread is a good example of how easily fake news can take over social media. An allegation of file tampering is made. Soon this is repeated and massively amplified by many as “facts” which are “proven”. In fact, few if any have traced the allegation back to its source, shown that the source is solid/reliable and that all alternative explanations (they exist) can be ruled out. DPR have denied the allegation. Both sides can’t be correct ... can they?

I’m not a huge fan of this review, mainly because I think that like most internet reviews it is far too much about the gear and too little about the experience of being a photographer, taking images and participating in the whole process. Such things are the wider cultural context against which all gear is assessed by customers. Pentax for all I know may score incredibly well in this regard. However, I am even less of a fan of allegations presented as facts.

Are you feeling alright? How is it even possible for photography gear oriented web site to be too much about the gear? Can't you read about the touchy-feely stuff elsewhere? :) The Internet is full of it (the BS I mean). Please, leave the DPR alone.

Are you calling all the evidence collected by numerous users who looked at the DP review site manufactured ? We are talking about at least 4 separate users having seen changes. It would be one thing if there was no evidence, quite another in this case. Are we all liars ? We are beyond allegations here. Surely a logical explanation will come from DPR, in time.

Changing images is hardly the worst thing that was done, though. The new images look better, after all. No need to pretend they didn't happen.

starbase218, and I don't discount it either. There is surely a reasonable explanation for the facts that were presented. I just don't like when the evidence is being called into question, and being called a liar.

@madbrain There's no evidence to stand up a claim that DPR have engaged in dishonest or underhand conduct by surreptiously changing files after the fact. You may have evidence that one or more files has changed, if your evidence checks out, but until someone can establish why by ruling out alternative explanations, it's not evidence of underhand conduct. When asked to consider the difference between allegations and facts you don't but instead become defensive. Classic fake news propagation cycle, even if you don't realize it yourself or don't think there has been underhand conduct.

@petrelukWhere did madbrain state that there is evidence of "dishonest or underhanded conduct"? These are your words only.

The only claim I have seen madbrain and others make is that at least one of the K-1 II images has changed. As multiple people witnessed this and have evidence in the form of screenshots and downloaded files, it is a bit rich of you to refer to them as creating "fake news".

If you cared to look at the metadata differences people reported regarding the different file versions, you would probably not entertain "technical glitch" theories.

I hope that DPReview will clarify what happened and will answer questions as to whether their assessment may have been based on images that weren't up to snuff yet. So far, I've only seen two responses which denied that any change occurred, which is very difficult to reconcile with what others have independently witnessed.

I'm hopeful there will be a logical explanation and I don't suspect underhandedness.

@ClassA This site is full of it by now. There’s one at the top of the thread as I write by one powderhound linking back to a thread on another website with terms like “beyond dishonest”. It’s classic fake news: a statement is made, the worst spin is put on it, soon the two together have been amplified far and wide as proven hard fact by others. Evidence of file changes is not on its own evidence of underhand conduct. Make a serious allegation like that then prove it, each link of the chain.

@petrelukFirst, if you are addressing madbrain, or anyone else for that matter, please be sure to only accuse them of what they did, not of what you think others may have done.

Second, powderhound only stated that "apparently" someting has changed and then wonders about the number of sales the review may have prevented. Again, no accusation of malpractice by DPReview.

If there are people using terms like "dishonest", on another site, please take it up with them.

Third, I don't understand your step by step guide, as none of the people you have mentioned and addressed so far has intended to do any second step. We don't claim to have evidence for malpractice, we are only stating there is evidence for change. Some have even welcomed the change and only wonder what happened. Others simply want to understand whether the change observed should result in a reevaluation on behalf of DPReview.

petreluk,As Class A said, you are only putting words in my mouth, that I simply didn't write. All I - and several others - wrote is that a change happened. We are wondering why. I didn't write that it was underhanded, or beyond dishonest. You did.

I'm not going to dignify any more posts of yours. "Classic fake news" is rich given that there is no accepted definition of "fake news", much less "classic". I don't write news, or headlines. I'm only a guy posting on some camera forums, reporting on the content.

If you want to make a point, how about using terms that have generally understood meaning, like "true" or "false" ?

The findings are there for you and anyone else to see and verify. Who do you think should be the final arbiter of truth ? If you want to make the case that nothing happened to the DPR images, then you better explain why you think the findings are false, and why multiple posters reported them.

All you are doing is spreading innuendo that multiple posters manufactured the findings. If you cared to look at the discussions that led to these findings, you would see that people were simply looking at the same images, coming to widely different conclusions, and finally noticing that they were looking at different sets of images from the same site, once screenshots were posted. That is incontrovertible. The only alternative is that there was a conspiracy and all those posters doctored the screenshots and lied in their posts. And if you believe that conspiracy theory, you better have at least some proof to back it up. You haven't provided anything but innuendo. Your posts have been completely fact-free. Can you understand why people would react negatively to that message ? No need to reply, really. Interested readers can go check it out for themselves.

Hmm... an Olympus user attacking the Pentaxian community with a strawman aka fake news. Interesting.The optical issues with the studio images, the jpegs being replaced, the AF-C test using release priority (and not focus priority as with the K-1), those things happened. Some issues are even acknowledged by DPR in a note.

It might invalidate your test, or not - we won't know if you're unwilling to even consider this possibility. Focus priority and getting more images in focus seems somewhat related. DPReview is nowhere near important enough for camera makers to adjust their cameras specifically for your test. These settings are there to help their users; your "cheating " scenario makes no sense. Your "ridiculously slow frame rates" scenario is something you've made up, not measured. This is looking for excuses.

By the way, the default is Auto for both the K-1 and K-1 II; only the AF Hold default changed, to Off. Yet one camera was tested with Release priority, and another with Focus priority - nobody there was curious why?

Products at the level of a Sony A7 III or K-1 do not deserve to be judged on their default settings. This is incongruent with the expected user base.

The same applies to JPG settings, of course. Pentax's philosophy to support user-defined levels of post-sharpening at default settings always hits them in your evaluation. This is entirely unnecessary as there are plenty of JPG adjustments that could cater to your JPG preferences.

I don't really understand why cameras of this calibre are evaluated on their internal JPG engines, but if it has to be done, then surely not using default settings.

The OOC JPEGs, that's an excellent example. Pentax indeed goes with defaults they think are most suited to photographers (likely considering some post processing) instead with what would get them better results in reviews.Such a behavior should not be penalised, just like optimizing for tests and not real world usage should not be encouraged.

How close those default settings are to those ideals, that's another matter.

@ecka84This particular discussion was about the (lack of) merit of using default settings.

I agree with you that cooking RAWs is bad and that any RAW processing should be optional. I hope Ricoh will give us an option with a firmware update.

Many manufacturers cook their RAWs, though, after a certain ISO threshold. This isn't a first by Ricoh by any stretch of the imagination, except that the processing starts rather early.

In the case of the KP, however, even DPReview liked the RAW cooking. I don't know whether the KP's processing is better or DPReview changed their attitude. I genuinely don't know and make no allegations either way.

I didn't read the KP review. Like it or not, but pre-cooked RAWs are not RAW at all. There's JPEG for those who don't want to deal with RAW processing. These kinds of fooling tricks are very disrespectful and insulting. I hope they will fix it.

And the "Overall Score" still doesn't make any sense whatsoever :).So, K1II's messed up image quality, AF system, etc. are not as messed up as 6DII's (for example), but then why it got 1% lower score? Are the "bells and whistles" more important than the actual images and usability these days?

I also found it puzzling, how rediculous high the score is. As tested, it should have been in the lower 70s.

The other thing I disliked in the test, was that DPR didn't bother do look deeply in to the Gimmicks, how half-baked and unreliable they are. Instead, DPR just dumped them untested, uncritically as postives into their conclusion table.

Instead, DPR focused very much on the RAW noise cheating issue, as the key message.

For the next model (if there will be any), this should be done better also for the gimmicks, with the same diligence as noise cheating reviewing.

I admit though that DPR has to have a tunnel blick onto the body, i.e. can't judge the factors such as - unavailability of good prime lenses, - bad flash systems, - bad rental & service, - bad 2nd hand market prices, - unlikelihood of the long term survival of the camera divisionetcetera.

If this was factored in, a score of somewhere in the 50s or 60s was fair.

@dpthoughts: Nah, considering the general unworthiness of anything Pentax and the sorry pee-ons who use it, the score should have been in the low twenties, or even lower!

Hmm, yet somehow, for no particular reason, some photogs out there are still shooting these cameras and lenses, and - wait for it, that's the best part! - they even manage to take the occasional accomplished photo with them. Strangely enough, they may not feel their gear is curbing their creativity, but instead helping them to express it.

Seriously, do you ever tire of your keyboard warfare and negativity? I don't know what you are shooting, nor, frankly, do I care. I'm just curious why you are focussed so much on gear and putting down particular gear, and so little on creating? Life can be fun, you know ...

While I don't disagree with the substance of DPR's conclusions about raw image quality, having downloaded and compared a number of the raw files I really think that they have overstated the differences and emphasized the negatives. I'm not in a position to dispute that all the pre-processor is doing is applying noise reduction, and that it does result in some loss of low-contrast detail, but I find this to be extremely minor. Given that at the ISOs where there is any significant detail loss, almost all photographers would apply some noise reduction themselves (with subsequent and probably worse detail loss), is this really such a big deal? When attempting to noise-reduce the K-1 files (using PS or LR), I have found it difficult to match the K-1 II files in terms of noise/detail balance, so my conclusion is that the pre-processor is actually doing a very good job of this, which some photographers may actually appreciate.

I think you have some good points here.For those who see any treating of data before Raw conversion as the pure devil this will not be the right tool.But looking at the results, and the tests done here might have exposed some (executional) problems, they are still top notch.

Let's play a game: what if one would look only at the resulting images? Dpreview has done that with the KP, which uses the same processor, and stated: "Thanks to the noise reduction, it even punches above its sensor size and price bracket, showing a similar performance to a D750, outperforming the X-T2 by nearly a stop, and coming close to the a7R II. All in all, Ricoh has done an excellent job squeezing out as much performance as possible from the KP's sensor."

I'm against any RAW data manipulation as a principle and cannot understand why the processing has not been made optional.

If we are lucky, Ricoh will come back to DPReview and explain that the respective camera settings should have turned off the processing, but didn't and that they'll provide a corrected firmware.

On the subject of overstating the case, I see what you are saying because a) many people regard the K-1 II processing as very helpful and are glad that they don't have to do it in post-processing. b) many camera models apply some form of RAW denoising typically starting at ISO 1600 or a bit higher up.

Pentax could have replaced that accelerator ship with a post-processing software because the chip is mainly doing noise reduction and image stacking? It is about the convenience when doing these automatically, but forced inferior results from the chip are quite pointless.

I hoped that K-1 II would have fixed the mechanical shutter shock blurring. Pentax video is terrible for its price, but electronic shutter timelapse mode could compensate that a bit for certain needs. Personally I don't care about the video, if it is not internally recorded at least with 4K 10-bit 4:2:2 because post-processing can benefit a lot from it. External recording could be an option, if it is not absurdly expensive like a grand or two. Basically a SSD drive with a power source can't be that expensive, but cameras don't use those?

@Fotoni I fully agree that the "accelerator" processing should at the very least be optional.

Whether it is fair to call it "inferior", I'm not sure. Most comparisons, including DPReview's, are not done well enough to support such a judgement. For starters, it is pointless to compare a noisy image with a less noisy one. An analogous mistake is made when comparing an unsharpened image from a camera with a Bayer-AA-filter with an image from a camera that is lacking such a Bayer-AA-filter.

If you are interested in video, Pentax is not the right brand. I don't understand why the K-1 (II) even has the headphone and mic ports as the video support in general is so basic. Note that Pentax supported sensor-based shake reduction during video for the K-5 (II) but since then replaced this with a pretty terrible software-based image reduction. They are clearly not interested in making video a strong suit of their cameras. Which should be completely fine for a stills photography camera.

The accelerator is great, IMO. My own results doing NR in post in the past, with K-30 images, has always blurred images, in the way K-1 II at high ISO simply doesn't. That doesn't mean a switch wouldn't be useful who those like you who want it. But I probably won't be turning it off personally.

As someone interested in video, I'm still glad the headphone and mic ports are present. I have not tested them yet, and may never use them. I generally record and monitor audio separately. I used to record video with a 9 year old HG21 camcorder. The K1 II video beats it. So, not useless. But not close to a GX85 4K.

K-1 II video is indeed basic compared to many cameras in the same price range. Mainly the low bit rate in HD, no 60fps, no 4K, and still 30 min recording limit (only Panasonic nails this one). I won't defend the K-1 II video. Pentax deserves the criticism here. I hope this is something they will take more seriously some day.

It's more than that. There is still a debate going on about what the real impact of the accelerator NR that was measured with FFTs really means. It means less noise, everyone can see it. The question is whether it automatically also means less useful detail/sharpness too that is detrimental to IQ. I'm not sure if one automatically follows from the other. I subjectively prefer the IQ from the K-1 II, in large part because of lower noise. But in terms of sharpness/detail, there are so many other variables in the test procedure that it is hard for me do draw serious conclusions one way or the other.

To list just a few odd things about the review:- the lens model was changed between K-1 and K-1 II- the test target that was shot was also changedI think these 2 are sufficiently important to call sharpness detail comparisons into question, and to proclaim that K-1 II has worse IQ after changing these variables is a stretch. At the very least, the studio shots don't bear that.

Beyond that, other odd things have happened with this review :- many parts of the test shots are blurred or out of focus. We are told by DPR to look only at the center, but if so, why post the whole scene ? IMO, it was a either a bad lens or misalignment during the tests, and shots should not have published as they are- the fact the K-1 II camera DPR tested was using firmware 1.0, vs 1.01 for anyone else who owns one so far . Could be a pre-production camera, though I doubt last-minute bug fixes would have any impact to IQ/NR- some OOC JPEGs files have changed size in the camera comparison tool- the JPEGs that are shown when viewing "RAW" files in the camera comparison tool have changed since the original review - for the better . Can't blame DPR for reprocessing the files better, but it should at least be noted somewhere. And the lens optical problems still show even in these new files.

Sorry but as you might have seen in my comments: I believe none of the reprocessing and changing claims. File sizes shown etc are just CMS stats - they change with changed cms settings or SAN / disc setups that provides no "evidence".I do believe that more and potentially better lenses are being made available for the Pentax FF mount. I cant comment on their quality but that might of course influence a comparision.. in any way possible.

CaPi, are you saying different content servers are serving different images of different sizes to different users ? For that to happen, files had to get changed somewhere at some point before replication accross servers.

I believe at least one person on Pentaxforums downloaded two versions of JPEG files at different points in time and can compare them, including metadata. The different in size was not small.

And I took screenshots of the tool that were vastly different than those of the other poster.

It appears the K-1ll image files have been replaced since the original Review was published, resulting in significantly better looking images. Sharpening has been applied to the newer files. Will you confirm the files have been replaced? Do you plan to revise your review text and conclusion?

Further, it has been reported that the LR/ACR “Adobe Standard” Camera Profile has not been updated for K-1ll. Was EXIF hacked to open the files using the K-1 Camera Profile? Do you have an undocumented advance copy of the K-1ll Camera Profile? What camera profile was used?

It has been reported your copy of the K-1ll used FW ver. 1.00, the pre-production sample camera version. It has been reported production cameras were released with FW version 1.01, the finished Firmware, and there is no update available because FW 1.00 was not released to the general population.

Will you consider changing the opinion of K-1ll to reflect these and other amendments made since the original review was posted?

Thanks for pushing and bringing your sharp eyes to open our eyes! Just looked at the Studio Scene Image Comparison Tool, you have confirmed what I was saying. The Pentax K-1 Mark II is looking UP and DPR needs to take a DEEPER look.

Relax guys.What's next? UFOs? Cameras have design quirks all the time. No vendor are exempt to that. It's best to find them and then they can be addressed. Eg. DPR kept me from buying the new Sony FF and I thank them for that. Is ist a bad camera? No way! Why didn't I buy it? I use AFC with wide open lenses a lot in concert photography.. That would have been awkward. I didn't know. Now I do fine.Would I buy the Pentax? If I had larger hands ;) and stronger arms. Is that the engineers fault? No way.

I have tiny hands, smaller than most women, and no strength in arms to speak off. Short fingers make it very challenging to play my grand piano. But much easier to play harpsichord. Yet, I still love handholding my K-1 II which weighs 4.4 lbs with a grip, eneloops, and the D FA 28-105mm kit lens.

Probably has to do with being used to shooting Pentax bodies for the last ten years, which are not known to be compact/light .

I bought a Lumix GX85 two months ago, and even though it weighs 1/4 of the K-1 II with a 12-32 lens, I cannot handhold it for long exposures.

I actually did a test of long exposures last night, and was shocked how badly I can handhold the much lighter camera vs heavier one. In-body IS in the K-1 II seems to work much better than dual IS in GX85.

@mad: I cannot speak to the Panasonic GX85and my comment about caring was regarding another post.I tried the K1 and went back to my Nikon. The grip is not for me so its a good example of not being an overall a fit for me.Regarding the raw topic: problems just happen no need to summon wild theories of blaming and shaming.

I used a grip on my K200D years ago. It was nice. Held 8 AA batteries too. Plus the 4 inside the camera itself. All eneloops. I could make 2000 shots in a single day - and did, once, at an SF gay pride parade - without changing batteries. All in the daytime, no flash. That camera didn't have high enough ISO for practical indoor/night-time though. Anyone want to buy my K200D for $100 ? Grip was already sold years ago. I gave it to my mom, but recently got her a K-50 for Xmas to replace it, and got the K200D back.

re: the replaced shots,

The evidence is strong that files were changed. We don't know how or why. But it's undeniable that several users got different images from the DPReview site at different times. I hope an explanation will come, rather than denial.

Well, that'll teach me to comment while on vacation out-of-the-office. Please see green text on the Image Quality page. Our conclusions remain unaffected, but we will revisit everything again once we've shot both the Mark I and Mark II cameras with the same exact lens copy (hopefully next week).

Special thanks to @MacroBokeh for cleaning the INside and OUTside of the windshield. Things are getting clearer.In my understanding of the Pentax K-1 Mark II review, and given more time I see the need for more than the spotlight being on the Pentax K-1 Mark II upgrade comparison. ANOTHER SPOTLIGHT needs to be moved aimed at the DPReview's Studio Scene Image Comparison Tool. I have studied what was posted looking at a range of ISO from 100 to 12800. The target area being the test chart, lower right. It reveals that SONY'S AR7 III image test is less than equal or below par to the K-1 Mark II. In the center of test scene everything is on par. What are we judging, the senor or the lens. Glass sharpness, glass softness? What's missing? All the same sharpness, all the same softness, all in between. What influence are we looking at?

Agree with all those points - if I owned a K-1 first gen, I might think twice about upgrading. Not just about the $500 but because I would be out of camera while it would be upgraded. As my first FF camera though, the K-1 II is great. And I'm not seeing any cameras in the same price range that offer a better value.

1. The Canons & Nikons that do 45-50MP are not at the same price point. For example, as of now on Amazon, the D850 is $3300, Canon 5DS is $3500. Sony A7R III is $3200. K-1 II is $2000.

2. As far as fps, D750 is cheaper and shoots 6fps, but only 24MP. 6D Mark II is a similar story. The Pentax does shoot 6.5fps in crop mode at 15MP, if that's any consolation. Not sure if the competitors have a higher fps in crop mode or not. I don't really have a use for a 6-10fps mode . Would love a 30 - 60fps mode (ie. full sensor video), but it's probably never going to happen on a DSLR.

4. I think there is a flash that offers HSS on Pentax body, Shanny 600G. Have one on order from China. It hasn't come yet.

5. +++ I bought a GX85 last month for 4K video, which cost me $500. It replaced an 10 year old Canon HG21 HD camcorder that I sold for $200 on monday.I wish the Pentax did 4K, and had no recording time limit. Even on a D850, I believe there is still a 30 minute limit. I believe Sony and Canon are the same. There may be other limits that kick in earlier in terms of file system or overheating. I I do long practice takes (>30 min) and I can't miss one frame. Panasonic is the only one I can see that is addressing the 30 minute limit in 4K. If I had a higher budget, I would have bought a GH5S which can shoot 4K/60 with no time limit. But for $500, GX85 meets most of my needs, other than lacking IR remote capability, and the screen not being able to fully adjust, like my camcorder could. That HG21 camcorder was also $1000 9 years ago ...

Pentax K-30 was worst.Next was my Canon HG21 . This is what I have shot all my Youtube videos with for the past 9 years, and it met my needs as an HD camera, though there was visible noise due to the small sensor.Next was K-1 II .Then Samsung Galaxy Note 8. It shoots good 4K, and the above 3 cameras don't.And finally Panasonic GX85 was the best, also in 4K.

IMO, the combo of K-1 II for stills and GX85 for 4K video with no recording limit is a great one, but value I could find as a hobbyist.

If Sony didn't have a 30 min recording limit, and less expensive/more available lenses , I would have likely gone with a single Sony body instead. Would be nice to have 4K60 in a Sony as well some day, which Panasonic has in GH5S.

I've downloaded the files and I've been comparing the ISO 6400 shots in LR6. The K-1II seems to perform more noise reduction in the dark colours and shadows, and seems to reconstruct colour (very successfuly!) using neighbouring pixels. This results in much better colour reproduction, but does lead to a few errors (the white lettering and outlines on the circuit board show these at 200% reproduction). Noise reduction in lighter areas seems minimal. There also appears to be very subtle sharpening going on in the K-1II files. This too might be responsible for the "errors" I mentioned previously. Either way, I'm extremely impressed with the K-1II at ISO 6400. At 100% reproduction it looks very slightly more processed in certain areas, but I can live with that. At typical reproduction sizes, these files will rock!!

Look at Pentax K-1 Mark II has bigger color gamut, K-1II files have more lumina and chroma noise. It is easier to pull back saturated colors than boost the pale colors. And that is fine because it could give us raw files that are better tweakable than the undersaturated files.

Now my request to DPreview is to revise the review since the "cooked RAW file" was clearly explained and presented showing its disadvantage so I like to see in the revision showing the advantage of Pentax K-1 MKII cooked RAW file, showing its strength and where it shines. And that would be an unbiased review.

"It is easier to pull back saturated colors than boost the pale colors."

No, it's actually exactly the opposite.

Expanded color gamut? Did you measure it? Also, color gamut makes little sense when it comes to digital cameras - you can define whatever gamut you'd like based on the transformation of device specific colors to LAB color space.

Also, in your face crops, the K-1 II has the least color and least detail, so again I have no idea what you're referring to as 'wider gamut'.

@rishi You know better than me and you know what I mean. The colors I'm referring to is the dynamic range the less noise. Of course D850 and A7RIII has more colors that's because of the noise but these are noise colors. To illustrate this again, let's compare using ISO 102400 (Max of D850)

:) this is all a devious ploy by DPR to get hold of an early example of the upcoming HD Pentax-DFA*50/1.4 AW.One question though, why isn't PixelShift used in the studio tests? Natural hunting ground surely for this tech?

"Pixel shift does not work AT ALL with any sort of movement which means like: NO LANDSCAPES because you think a landscape isn't moving, until you try to use a pixel shift picture, and then you realize that every leaf moved a little, and the water moved a little, and then the picture ends up just totally garbage".

@dpthoughts, why bring in another review, thereby bypassing the intent of my question? I never mentioned landscapes but specifically indicated a studio scenario where the K-1 series has a built in advantage.You bring to mind a Churchill quote, namely, "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject"

Robbie, OK, you are right for strictly studio scenarios as JPEGs, this is fine.

It isn't a real advantage though. A meaningful comparison against a non-PS camera would mean, that you make also 4 exposures with the other camera, blend these as well to reduce noise, and then apply stronger sharpening (to the higher extent permitted by the reduced noise).

Then the results could be compared more or less meaningfully. Else you were comparing just apples and pears. Or pretending an advantage where there is actually none. Wich in turn may have been the marketing mission of this thing actually, who knows ;)

I just remember, how superior Photoshop photo stacking was over PixelShift, in the hand-held scenario, as demonstrated on DPR shortly before.

I wondered why that ranking should be different in the tripod or studio scenario?

@starbase218, OK I wasn't sure if this works. For the hand-held scenario, that failed with visible artefacts as we know.

@Robbie do you really think you can have reasonable discussion with a guy claiming that he lives in Antarctica, has listed K-1 II as his previous gear, and writes such ignorant statements as "for Pentax, it is JPEG-only, and the crispness illusion comes from a special in-camera sharpening. the actual pixel shifting is just to pave the grounds for that a little (esp. noise reduction)."? This guy is a known troll.

Come on, because not all facts and figures (and DPR test findings) please every hardcore fanboy, this doesn't mean that we truth-seekers are trolls, or that DPR was bribed by advertising business, or whatever allegation I had to read here from fanboys whenever DPR or forum members bring some truths onto the table.

If the procesing of PixelShift RAW files happens in Pentax software on the PC, then the crucial step (the ultra-fine sharpening) happens there in the Pentax software of course, and not yet in the camera. Sorry for the confusion.

Noise reduction is the natural, automatic benefit when merging together multiple exposures. The astro photographers to that all the time for this reason. Pentax pixelshift draws this denoising effect as well from its 4 exposures, of course.

Polish lab-test site tested K-1 Pixel Shift RAWs developed in DCU with Imatest and found no signs of sharpening.

I thought you meant noise reduction in the same way the accelerator unit present in K-1 applies it.

Anyway, by DPR's own words: "The multiple sampling of the same scene effectively gives a 2EV dynamic range boost, meaning it out-performs both the D810 and the 645Z by a comfortable margin. Less noise (though multiple captures) and multiple 14-bit values at every pixel mean it can give outstanding levels of DR for static scenes where you can use the Pixel Shift mode."

Yes correct, blending 4 exposures yields a natural noise benefit of 2 EV, which is better than the 645Z with only 1 exposure.

However, if you would allow the 645Z or the Nikon D810 to also make 4 exposures, and blend them, then these cameras would be better again, so that the old DR ranking would be in place again:D810 - best645Z - secondK-1 - third.

However, if you do more than just 4 exposures, say 5 to 10, you could extend the DR superiority of the D810 / 645Z even further over PixelShift.

The same as for the handheld PixelShift comparison.

What did the Polish lab test mean with "no signs of sharpening"? What did they test?

Of course, the sharpening deployed will not be a simple filter-based method like in Adobes RAW converters or like unsharp mask, for example. Yes, they wouldn't find traces/artefacts of such a simple method, I wouldn't have expected that neither ;)

DPT..Pure BS. The amount of time you spend doing that with the 850, a K1II user could just as easily be sharpening a "soft image".

The K1 can output a PS raw file. There is now motion compensation to eliminate areas of motion in multiple exposures. You obviously have never used a K1 or K1II. But this is the nonsense we see here more and more at DPR, gear head nerds instead of photographers.

There is a print view you can use. Not sure exactly what it means, maybe 300 dpi.

Differences in sharpness would show if one is cropping the image to make large prints, one of the reasons to buy a high megapixel camera. I'm not seeing cases where the K-1 II performs worse than the K-1 in terms of sharpness, though. The D850 has more detail in the beard, due to having higher MP but also more noise. After you do PP on it, I'm not sure it would yield any better image than the "cooked" K-1 II image.

There are some weird things going with colors in the D850, though, even at ISO 100.

Why bring the D810 into this ? Do you really want to compare a 2014 camera against a 2018 camera ? Do you think the 36MP is all there is to it ?

Let's humor the troll.

The D810 still costs $2800, 40% more than the K-1 II, and both have identical 36MP resolution. One has in-body SR, the other does not. One has PixelShift, the other does not. One tops out at ISO 51,200, the other at ISO 819,200 . One also gives you weird colors even at ISO 100.

Fuji always bakes its RAWs, Pentax almost always does that as well (especially in lower-level cameras). Noise reduction in my XA3 and XE2 is really quite visible, similar to Pentax Kx, Kr and K50. K5 II had some but not so bad, I did not see this with K3 and K1 (first version).

Some RAW converters "bake" some softness into Fuji results, e.g. Photoshop when demosaicking X-Trans patterns. Which makes the result comparable to the effect of an anti-aliasing filter. This softening also "helps" the noise a little, even if the denoising sliders are at zero.

This may lead some to the suspicition, that RAW files would be denoised. But it is only Adobes X-Trans algorithm.

I have tried ACR and Luminar and compared to Nikon D7100 and Pentax K3, my conclusion is the same: XA3 supresses noise in RAW.What is interesting is out-of-camera JPEGs from XA3 at ISO12800 and 6400 look really better than both D7100 and K3. Even if I process Nikon's and Pentax's RAWs, XA3's OOC Jpegs look better to my eyes. At 3200 and 6400 though, I can get better details and look from D7100 and K3's RAWs (Xa3 does not take RAW after ISO6400).

My Pentax K-1 Mark II came with Firmware 1.01. I pre-ordered the camera and got it in the first week of U.S release. I do not know whether Pentax released the camera with Firmware 1.00. Also, I do not see any firmware download for K-1 Mark II

@DPREVIEW Team - Was it firmware v1.0 when you tested the camera? Almost all of us have firmware 1.01 when we received the camera and I have received the camera on April 12 (I think Pentax started shipping them on April 10 or 11th in US).

This is from a European site who received the K-1 Mark II in March (it started shipping couple of weeks early in Europe)

This also shows that the Pentax released the camera with firmware 1.01 from day-one itself. If DPREVIEW tested with firmware 1.0, there may be some differences. So, far the answer is not very clear from DPREVIEW (whether the testing was performed with firmware 1.01 or 1.0)

And about "baked RAW is the evil"... from a marketing point of view it would have been better if they put a switch but keep in mind that the software can't do same job of the hardware, at least in the same amount of time, then please stop thinking that baking the RAW it's an offense to photographers.

First of all, it is a cheesy attempt to get better test results, a bit like doping in sports.

Then, photographing and preserving RAWs means, that you can use - current or future computers with far superior processing power, in conjunction with - current or future RAW converter software with far superior algorithms,to increase the ratio of detail retention versus noise reduction.

Then you'll sit there with your K-1 II RAW files, their lost details, and their ugly denoising results (ugly by future standards).

Even today, pre-cooked RAWs means, apart from irreversably destroyed details, that the statistical properties of native noise are also destroyed, which disturbs the effectiveness of "real" denoising software.

@dpthoughts: But this is all hypothetical to you isn't it? You don't seem to take any photos worth sharing and have no equipment list to speak of, so what exactly do you bring to the debate other than incessant trolling?

DPR your conclusion is a total joke that the K-1MKII images lose detail as ISO increases compared to the K-1 and the Sony and Nikon. The DPR's Studio Scene contradicts that conclusion.

Two simple tests to see how much superior the K-1MKII files are not only over the K-1 but also over the Nikon and Sony.

First put the highlight over the color chart. Then check each ISO level. Right from ISO 200 the K-1, A7III and D850 begin introducing noise to the image. By ISO 6400 they are all a noisy messes. The K-1MKII maintains clean color tone far superior.

Second just put the highlight over a section just of the grey background. You can do this any were in the scene then check each ISO level. Again the K-1MKII maintains a clean even grey tone while the K-1,A7III and D850 become a noisy mess.

Those noise patterns in the K-1, A7III, D850 cover the entire file. How do you explain all that noise maintaining better detail? It doesn't.

Here is even a simplier test. Put the highlight right in the center. We can all agree the center is at least equal in regards to focus accuracy for all four cameras.

As the ISO is increased it is very clear which is the best. At ISO12800 the K-1MKII is still well defined with an even grey tone when the other three are a not as detailed or sharp and a noisy mess.

How can DPR make this takeaway claim, "Baked-in noise reduction results in Raw files with progressively less detail than the original K-1 as the ISO increases.", when the Studio Scene comparison clearly contradicts it.

The detail loss, as RAW increases, has been verified statistically / mathematically by now as well.

Mind though that the RAW blurring algorithm can be seen as a cheating algorithm, and as such it may not be 100% predictable and may behave differently on different scene items. E.g. somewhat reducing blur strength if it sees certain structure patterns. That's imaginable, I didn't check that.

I like the beard portrait because its delicate noise-like structures make cheating so difficult.

dpthoughts you mean all that noise you are mistaking as sharpness? The K-1MKII image is more detailed because there is less noise.

Post the scene of the coins at ISO 12800. Which holds more detail? Set up the scenes I suggested while your at it. It is very clear which is best at all ISO levels. As ISO levels increase the K-1MKII increasingly gets better against all three cameras.

dpthoughts that is what you have been led to believe but the Ricoh Accelerator Unit has changed all that. The visual evidence is clear using the DPR Studio Scene how much better the K-1MKII is over the K-1, A7II, and D850 when ISO increases.

dpthoughts set it up to show part of the center but include the grey tone from the DPR logo as well so there is white black and grey. When you increase ISO step by step it is abundantly clear the K-1MKII is holding better continuous tone. It is also holding better value as ISO increases.

DPR's own visual evidence completely contradicts their claims in this review.

The 77 limited was released in 1999, the DFA 50 Macro first production date was 2004. The Nikon is 2012, while the Sony is 2017. Are we comparing apples to apple here? Why not wait for the DFA*50 1.4 and retest.

Re: your beard example : again, I am not seeing anything unsatisfactory with the K-1 II or K-1 pictures in that link of yours. The D850 and Sony pictures are sharper in the beard, but that's expected for cameras that have 50MP and 42MP, vs the 36MP of the K-1 and K-1 II . Those Nikon and D850 cameras also cost 60% more. I'm sure if the K-1 II cost >$3000, it would feature a sensor of with more than 36MP. It doesn't make too much sense to compare bodies that have a 60% difference in cost.

Why bring the D810 into this ? Do you really want to compare a 2014 camera against a 2018 camera ? Do you think the 36MP is all there is to it ?

Let's humor the troll.

The D810 still costs $2800, 40% more than the K-1 II, and both have identical 36MP resolution. One has in-body SR, the other does not. One has PixelShift, the other does not. One tops out at ISO 51,200, the other at ISO 819,200 . One also gives you weird colors even at ISO 100.

"The 77 limited was released in 1999, the DFA 50 Macro first production date was 2004. The Nikon is 2012, while the Sony is 2017. Are we comparing apples to apple here? Why not wait for the DFA*50 1.4 and retest."

If Pentax users have to wait for future lenses to get expected results out of their system, then that's a problem, isn't it? Making our results probably more valid than the hypothetical results of some future lens few are likely to own...

Rishi Sanyal,Definitely valid, but if Pentax users who don't shoot test shots for a living bought a new lens, and the best image they could get out of that last was blurred, they would surely not publish their work, and send the lens back.

@Rishi Sanyal"If Pentax users have to wait for future lenses to get expected results out of their system, then that's a problem, isn't it?":

Fortunately, it isn't a problem, though, because there are lenses in K-mount that would be suitable for shooting your test scene. There is absolutely no need to wait for a DFA* 50/1.4 to get better studio scene images than those that you produced.

N.B., your results do not become "more valid" just because someone makes an invalid comment.

Also, please share with us how you know that "few are likely to own" the DFA* 50/1.4. Do you know something we don't know?

@DPReviewThere have been reports that the comparison tool now delivers sharper K-1 II images than before.

Can you confirm that updates took place?

Since the new versions seem to be considerably sharper (according to the reports), does that influence your opinion on the image quality of the K-1 II? Note that in particular (at least in one instance) the JPG file size has increased considerably, a clear sign of more detail/noise being present in the image.

Perhaps the loss of detail isn't as bad as it initially appeared?

There is also a report that states default Lightroom settings yield sharper images than those shown by your tool. This could be fine, as you may be using non-default values for all cameras, but it would be good to confirm that all development parameters were set as intended.

dpthoughts: you're cherry picking here; when I move the comparison tool around the frame, the K-1 II looks a lot better than I expected from reading the review - in fact it looks pretty damn good, maybe the best overall (just my subjective opinion, of course). I think it's fair to criticize Ricoh for releasing such a minor upgrade, but it looks to me like this camera is much better than the review suggest. I probably won't upgrade my K-1, but if I was buying new I would pick the Mk2 without reservation.

I like the beard portrait most because it has already subtle structures, which are pretty immune against noise cheating attempts.

This is a trap to catch noise cheating easily, because as soon as something is mistaken as noise it gets blurred ;)

However, for other parts of the scene, cheating may be more successful. E.g. flat patches obviously, or clear structures with are recognised easily by the denoiser, so they can be exempted from blurring.

Then, on one occasion I saw a hint, that denosing may not be the only cheat, but there may be also subtle local contrast pushs.

This is then pleasing to the eye, that's why the "details" slider is so popular in RAW converters ;)

I wouldn't like fully pre-processed RAW files, even if only "subtly".

Lens effects are also an overlay, say Pentax lenses were really good in the very image center, very micro-contrasty there. Then this may help finding details more pleasing there as well, when comparing to a uniformly performing lens?

@dpthoughtsDPReview staff have advised multiple times that image areas away from the centre should NOT be used for comparisons.

The K-1 II images show severe problems outside the centre and DPReview responded that this is not an issue because ONLY the centre portion of the test images should be used in order to reduce the impact of lens performance.

So please follow DPReview's instructions and refrain from referring to areas which DPReview did not quality control. As soon as DPReview used an adequate lens (not the FA 77/1.8 either) then you may be able to reference any image area you like.

@Rishi SanyalAs madbrain pointed out there is evidence that the files have changed. The size of a JPG file, for instance has changed from 29.5MB to 32.4MB.

Are you saying the person who pointed this out and posted a respective screenshot (see madbrain's post) has manufactured this?

Also note that I never said I "think" your "original images are somehow sharper than before". Could you please try to be more accurate in the future?

I understand that you have to deal with a lot of indiscriminate posters but I take exception with the idea of being thrown into one bag with them. Perhaps try to read less comments, if you cannot remain fair and respond without a snarky tone.

I downloaded, processed and examined some of the raw files a few days ago, and compared them to the ones visible through the comparison tool. I used ACR with no sharpening or noise reduction. I found that the K-1 II ISO12800 file was significantly sharper than the one on display on DPR, whereas the ones at other ISOs were very close, if not identical.

I have just made the same comparison, and the ISO 12800 file is now identical in sharpness to the one on DPR. My conclusion is that there was definitely some processing variation between the K-1 II processed jpegs originally shown (this was no surprise because there was not a natural progression through the ISOs), and that the ISO12800 jpeg (processed from raw) has definitely changed since.

@Rishi SanyalPlease consider the viewpoints presented by madbrain and jonby.

I'm sure there is an explanation for this that does not involve readers imagining things.

If you can confirm that indeed previously softer JPGs were used and perhaps RAW development settings had been incorrect, it would be most interesting to learn which versions were used to form your final verdict on the K-1 II's image quality.

one more request for clarification on this point. I am among the many that noticed an image change on your comparison tool at 12,800 ISO (the one that you used to back your assessment on image quality in the review). It has nothing to do with our imagination, these are facts. Please do not ignore our requests. Thanks for your understanding.

Well, that'll teach me to comment while on vacation out-of-the-office. My apologies. Please see green text on the Image Quality page (one Raw file had a processing error in our workflow). Our conclusions remain unaffected, but we will revisit everything again once we've shot both the Mark I and Mark II cameras with the same exact lens copy (hopefully next week).

And, no, no JPEGs were changed. Neither were any other Raws save for the one with the processing error.

@Rishi SanyalI hope you realise that posting while "on vacation out-of-the-office" was not the problem.

I hope you realise that the real problem was to assume that readers were making wrong allegations and to respond without being in posession of the facts. I hope this will teach you the power of bias ("readers report what they want if they are angry") and the need to rely on what can be objectively determined. I hope you see the connection to testing.

I'm puzzled by the green text in the review because if "revisiting everything" had a chance of changing your assessment then why would you leave the current comments/verdict up? Shouldn't the content be retracted for the time being or be accompanied with a big caveat?

FWIW, I personally don't expect a different outcome next time but if the current data (with partially sharper results for the K-1 II) supports your assessment, why announce a "revisit" (instead of just more comparable shots)?

Finally, I hope you will ensure that the K-1 II shots will not become worse by using a new lens just two support a K-1 vs K-1 II comparison, because the shots will be used for comparison against other cameras. The goal is to improve the consistency of the K-1 II shots and bring the acuity of the K-1 shots to the same level, do you agree?

And yet readers are still making wrong allegations, still claiming multiple images were replaced despite the text in the review clearly stating that only one image was mis-sharpened.

Given the number of red herrings many readers instantly gravitated to, none of which actually changed any of our conclusions, perhaps you can understand my skepticism. Seeing as how my colleagues hadn't chimed in in the comments, & that I couldn't find the one file that had been re-uploaded, I mistakenly concluded nothing had been changed. And for that I apologize.

But readers' claims that images (if not 'all' the images, as was implied) had been changed was flat out incorrect, as there was only one.

You do agree the massive conspiracy theory that ensued - that all files had been quietly replaced and therefore nothing can be trusted - was incorrect, right? Especially when even the replaced file still backed up our conclusions?

"I'm puzzled by the green text in the review because if "revisiting everything" had a chance of changing your assessment then why would you leave the current comments/verdict up?"

B/c we're confident in our conclusions since we didn't use problematic parts of the scene in our evaluations.

"FWIW, I personally don't expect a different outcome next time but if the current data (with partially sharper results for the K-1 II) supports your assessment, why announce a "revisit" (instead of just more comparable shots)?"

Because if we didn't state that we'd revisit everything, we'd be accused of being biased for not revisiting our evaluations and conclusions, wouldn't we?

Again, we wrote that in good faith. Please please stop assuming we have the worst of intentions when it comes to Pentax. Even the amount of time we're spending reshooting both cameras now is coming at a considerable editorial cost to other efforts and reviews. But we're doing it b/c we do feel it's the right thing to do.

@Rishi SanyalI'm not assuming you have the worst intentions when it comes to Pentax. You are, again, fighting strawmen.

I do think that you are less familiar with Pentax products than with other products and that many at DPReview are big fans of mirrorless designs. I do believe that unconscious bias is at work when you evaluate, and particular describe, Pentax products. If you compare comments about camera weight, for instance, they have a different tone when they are levelled at a Pentax camera. This is not subjective. However, it is wrong for you to assume that I believe you have the "worst intentions".

I find it very odd that you state you will be "revisiting everything" just to cover your back with respect to potentially negative responses. Either you do think a re-shoot could change your overall evaluation, or you don't. Please don't pretend it could, when you already know it won't.

Again, personally I don't think a re-shoot will bring any new results.

Images. Image. What's the big difference? Why antagonizing your readers over it?Pointing out mistakes is not the same as implying about intentions. OTOH denying and pointing fingers at others is the worst way of dealing with mistakes.

"I find it very odd that you state you will be "revisiting everything" just to cover your back with respect to potentially negative responses."

We didn't say we'd 'revisit everything'. We said: 'We will, of course, re-visit the image quality commentary in our review as soon as we've been able to do this.' How can you possibly be offended by this statement?

"I do think that you are less familiar with Pentax products than with other products and that many at DPReview are big fans of mirrorless designs."

That's simply untrue. If anything, it's the opposite when it comes to DSLR vs. mirrorless - I know because I work here. Your assumptions of the opposite are precisely why I think you think there's an anti-Pentax bias here. You're right - camera weight isn't subjective, and the combination of extremely heavy modern Pentax lenses held even further out from the body makes the camera + lens generally feel heavier than many other competing systems. That's an objective fact.

@Rishi SanyalI'm not offended by your statement about revisiting the image quality commentary as such. I take issue with the notion of posting such a statement when -- according to your own earlier statement -- you know full well that a re-visit won't change your assessment. The latter are your words, not mine.

You misread my statement about subjectivity. I was referring to the fact that it is objectively observable that your use of language is less favourable when describing Pentax products, e.g., when it comes to commenting on camera weight. Even though there is only a 5g difference between the K-1 II and the Nikon D850, the language used for commenting on the K-1 II's weight is less favourable.

Besides, a hefty body can help stabilising a hand-held shot and a generously sized grip helps with handling bigger lenses, so I don't think it is balanced writing if the emphasis is on portability only.

Pentax glass is criticised as "extremely heavy" and "expensive". I haven't read the same criticism levelled towards Sony. Note that the Sony lens is more expensive and only 275g lighter.

DPReview Pentax reviews also always emphasise the lack of modern lenses. Have you checked the full list of FF lenses available for Pentax? Are silent focus lenses really the be all and end all of photography? It is one thing to state that the silent focus lens line is still in development and another to imply that one's shooting options would be limited with a Pentax camera due to limited lens selection. The latter is simply not true.

Are your readers that complain about very pricey Sony lenses and a lack of choice among native Sony lenses wrong? I don't see that criticism in DPReview reviews. And no, the existence of adapters does not invalidate criticism regarding native lens options and pricing.

If you think Pentax is receiving at least equal attention as other brands, how do you explain the following?

* many times, the fact that Pentax cameras have built-in image stabilisation has been added to the "Pros" only after readers point out that it had been missing.

* You evaluate Pixel Shift with inadequate software and even after correcting your mistake you still deem Pixel Shift as a niche feature. As soon as Sony does a (worse) implementation, it apparently suddenly loses the disadvantage of being practically inapplicable.* An article explaining your recent flood of Sony articles fails to mention any recent Pentax innovation. They do exist. Do you know Pentax well enough to name them? If so, why was Pentax one of the very few brands that wasn't mentioned in that article?

* the lack of a dedicated AF point controller is a "Cons" for the K-1 but not for other cameras like the 6D II.

You can build a case to support whatever accusation of bias you please, as it appears you've done.

The reality is much simpler: things are overlooked from time to time. But to respond to your points individually:

IBIS was even omitted as a Pro in the Sony a7 III review. Bias? No, just an oversight.

You appear to have forgotten our first article on Pixel Shift when the K-1 came out, praising how it allowed the K-1 to compete with medium format dynamic range. Sony 'loses the disadvantage of being practically inapplicable'? Here's what we actually wrote in the conclusion: "Unfortunately, Sony's current software doesn't provide any motion correction whatsoever - so for movement of any kind, you'll need to manually 'paint in' information from one of the single Raw shots. It's irksome enough that even slight movements in clouds can cause wonky looking cross-hatching. So there's promise here, but it needs improvement."

As for the 6D II, we wrote: "We've found it's entirely likely that you'll miss shots when the eight-way controller refuses to respond to your inputs - if only Canon had brought over the 5D IV's excellent joystick."

Of course we criticized its lack of an AF joystick, despite not using that exact wording in the cons. The reviewer - at the time - thought it enough to criticize the actual AF selection method when wrote the con: "Rear control dial is mushy and imprecise".

With this level of nit-picking, you can pick any of our reviews and build a case that we're biased against (or for) that brand.

@Rishi SanyalThis may be "fun" for you, as you obviously don't care whether you are harming a smaller manufacturer, intentionally or not.

I most certainly do not enjoy this frustrating dialogue in which you continue to display a snarky attitude despite having had your lesson about eating humble pie.

You chose not to respond to one of my major points regarding the inconsistent critique of lens line ups between Pentax and Sony. Your point about being able to build up any case of bias is a bad joke. The case regarding Pentax discrimination could be continued and couldn't be matched by how you report about Sony, for instance. I could counter most of your refutations but what is the point? You seem to be unable to properly acknowledge shortcomings in your work and accept valid criticism without constantly trying to belittle others as trolls.

If you don't realise what damage you are causing to Pentax with your omissions and other inadequacies, you have no business being a journalist.

This is very sad Class A. My comment about you at least having fun erroneously accusing us of bias was a simple wish: I at least hope you're having fun, b/c we certainly are not. The vocal Pentax crowd is simply doing our entire site a disservice, and worse: doing Pentax a disservice. We are now wasting hours of our editorial time to republish no changes to our conclusions, and Pentax users are now pretty well known for complaining about things that ultimately don't change the conclusions of our reviews at all (K-1 review anyone? K-3 review anyone? After all Pentaxian complaints, none of our results were actually contested).

Sorry I responded to all of your but one complaints: about lenses. Oh, but I did. It's not about silent AF. It's about actually usable AF. Pentax non-silent AF motors are stupendously behind all modern lenses. Modern Pentax lenses are far heavier than those of competitors: worse is that they're held out so far from the body they feel even heavier.

Things get even worse: we now have EVFs capable of 1000 nits & HDR display. Coupled w/ HDR video capture viewed on an HDR-capable EVF (a9/a7R III) makes for video you can't even begin to approach on DSLRs. That's before we talk about video quality & AF.

In fact, if we were as unbiased & had as 'level' a playing field across cameras/brands as we probably should, Pentax would score even lower than we've scored.

Simply saying that 'adapters aren't acceptable' doesn't make it so.

The reality is AF performance & frame rate of even adapted lenses on Sony (hundreds) will outperform single-digit numbers of native lenses on Pentax.

If you can't bear an actual unbiased review of Pentax, as it stands against all competitors, then perhaps you should not be visiting our site. We'd be sorry to lose you, but that is a simple reality. Innovations like AA filter simulation are cool, but don't affect our overall score: aliasing is not an issue & easily removable. Astrotracer rarely works.

Like I said, if anything, we've overrated the Pentax K-1 II. Its noise reduction in Raw makes it impossible for you to tailor your NR in Raw using your favorite Raw converter without detrimental effects.

If anything, our reshoot has re-affirmed our initial position of the K-1 II.

If the camera works for you, that's great, and we're happy you've found a camera to suit your photographic needs. We have a target overall audience broader than you, and that's where Pentax falls far behind more capable competitors that can perform just as well for certain use cases, but better for others.

You believe readers opposing to your omissions and errors are doing Pentax a disservice. Perhaps by that you mean to disclose that you cannot remain objective in the face of criticism? How else could Pentaxians trying to achieve parity in reporting could have a negative effect?

You believe correcting your methodological mistakes is "a waste of time". Don't do it, if it is a "waste of time". Don't blame anyone but yourself for "wasting your time", if you chose to do so. I support you in not doing it as you won't help the K-1 II with reshoots.

You are wrong in implying that all protests have been in vain. You repeatedly changed your reviews in significant ways in response to criticism by Pentaxians. I just point to the incorrect allegations regarding Pentax AF as a whole (vs AF-C) and your failed evaluation of Pentax Pixel Shift. The list continues.

I further note:You still don't understand that you are inconsistently criticising Pentax for a pricey and limited lens line up while not extending the same courtesy to Sony.

You decide what is important for a reader, even if you don't know their preferences. Perhaps there are people who prefer not to waste time removing aliasing artefacts that should not be there in the first place?

Your argument about lens ergonomics fails to recognise the inferior purchase one has on a small MILC lacking a proper grip. You fail to acknowledge that adapters shift the centre of gravity as well.

Modern high performing lenses are heavy. No way around that. The Sony 70-200/2.8 is not significantly lighter than the Pentax equivalent.

You don't understand that there are photographers who would buy a dedicated video camera if they wanted to use proper video. The assumption that every camera primarily designed for stills photography also has to compete as a video camera is ill-guided. Good video capabilities imply compromises on stills photography quality. Not everyone wants that. It would be nice, if DPReview did separate scores for photography vs video. Wouldn't that help some buyers?

Some people don't want EVFs for a number of good reasons. Is this something you could consider?

I further note that -- according to you -- you are scoring Pentax too high, thus misleading your readers about the true lack of value. You are not living up to your journalistic responsibilities by truthfully reporting your findings. Should we not trust anything you write, if it is not the truth as you see it?

You are right when stating "Simply saying that 'adapters aren't acceptable' doesn't make it so." Saying so, doesn't make adapters unacceptable. Adapters make themselves unacceptable due to matters of precision, cost, loss of functionality and substandard handling.

Pentax offers a lot of positives for a significant user base (which is larger than the number of users they are selling to). You'd do well to understand these positives instead of assuming that every camera needs to fit the design ideals that Sony chose for their line up.

Criticise the negatives -- I'm not denying that Pentax has deficiencies -- but do it consistently and don't get hung up about them as a certain user base just doesn't care about these aspects.

@Rishi SanyalI agree with you that "causing damage to a manufacturer" is indicated and in line with the responsibilities of a journalist, but only if the respective criticism is justified.

In the case of Pentax, however, you often inconsistently apply criticism (through omissions or otherwise). Moreover, you subject a product (a DSLR for stills photography) to metrics that are adequate for a different class of product (that aims to do very well at video and prioritises compactness over ergonomics).

You may be wanting to act in service of your readers but you only act in service of an admittedly large class of readers whose preferences align with Sony's design ideals.

Not everyone wants EVFs. Not everyone wants a small camera body to handle large lenses (like the Sony 70-200/2.8). Not everyone wants a sensor that runs full-time, etc. Can you acknowledge that?

You are confusing me with a Pentax fanboy, while I'm just asking for consistency and a broader mindset.

Forced noise reduction in Raw makes the end result less desirable than the original K-1 with NR performed in the Raw converter.

We've verified this.

Arguing against this is literally doing yourself disservice: you should be requesting of Pentax exactly what we've requested: making NR in Raw an option, if not turned off completely.

The reality is most high ISO noise is due to shot or photon noise. That can't be reduced using an 'Accelerator unit'. That's plain physics. You should be asking what exactly Pentax is trying to sell you.

The marketing around Dynamic Pixel Shift is telling: 'taking advantage of the shifts handshake causes'? Well you can do that with any camera, and worse: do it better, without the inexplicable artifacts Pentax' mode causes.

In our opinion, the Mark II is literally a worse camera than the Mark I, and in an ever evolving landscape, that makes its score plummet relative to the original.

Oh, and a Pentax K-1 with a modern 15-30, or 24-70, or 70-200 are all nearly un-handholdable compared to a Sony A7 III with 16-35, 24-70, or 70-200 F2.8.

We know because we literally set these up side by side and tried them. Our assessment stands, and it's not just me. It's literally nearly every reviewer on the team. Don't agree? That's fine. But accuse us of unfounded bias? Please set up some torque arm measurements to disprove us, and we'll be happy to re-evaluate a finding that seems plainly obvious to us: that comparable Pentax body+lens combos are far clunkier and feel far heavier than comparable combos from other brands.

Because physics: take even more weight and hold it even farther out, and it feels far heavier than simple weight considerations might lead you to belief.

"You believe correcting your methodological mistakes is "a waste of time". Don't do it, if it is a "waste of time". Don't blame anyone but yourself for "wasting your time", if you chose to do so. I support you in not doing it as you won't help the K-1 II with reshoots."

So your opinion as to whether or not we should do the reshoot is whether or not it will 'help' the K-1 II?

Well, that directly speaks to your bias.

We're only reshooting so users can directly compare the K-1 to the K-1 II at any given ISO, at any point in our scene. We didn't actually need to reshoot to come to the same conclusion we come to after reshooting: that the K-1 II forced NR comes at a detail cost, and the introduction of new unwanted artifacts at high ISO that only become accentuated when you apply additional NR in your favorite Raw converter.

We literally have no reason to reshoot the K-1 II (not to mention the K-1), but we're doing so to help you, our readers, come to the same conclusions we have.

We didn't need to reshoot because we intelligently only used the portions of the scene that started out with at least similar, or higher, contrast / sharpness to the original K-1 - thereby allowing us to assess the effects of the forced mandatory Raw NR regardless of certain off-central portions of the scene being softer due to the lens.

Make sense? I don't know how we could be any clearer.

Just like with the original K-1 review, where many of you were unhappy that we chose to initiate focus on the rider's chest or leg as opposed to his face: our reshoot only appeases Pentaxians who need to find something to complain about. It doesn't change any of our conclusions.

Every first iteration of a Pentax review is a 'debacle'. Our reshoots end up proving we were right to begin with, but it's still remembered as a 'debacle'. Even from before I joined the team.

It's sad, really, b/c every time we end up retesting, we get to the same conclusion. Almost like we were right to begin with...

"Do your assessments consistently, with increased objectivity, and leave out the charged language. Then fanboys will still complain, but reasonable people like myself won't."

Doubtful - you think we're biased towards Sony. Do you know how many anti-Sony bias complaints we receive?

You'd be surprised to know that of all brands, it was anti-Sony bias that I was asked repeatedly to resign over. Complaints sent directly to Jeff Bezos. That's how important those readers thought my complaints about the a7 II high ISO performance were - until it became commonly accepted I / we were correct in our assessment that the a7 and a7 II performed like APS-C cameras in terms of low light performance.

Something we weren't afraid to say. We don't mince our words on anyone.

To your point though, we're working on new algorithms that only score cameras based on objectively measurable criteria. Image quality, AF, basic ergonomics, weight, price all included. We'll be transparent about our formula.

@Rishi SanyalI personally agree with you that the K-1 II is a worse camera than the K-1. Unless the mandatory RAW NR becomes optional, I regard the K-1 II as unacceptable. I don't make excuses for Pentax where they deserve criticism.

I have tried to get people on my side to request people to make the NR optional. If Ricoh won't do it, it is bad news not just for the K-1 II but for future Pentax products.

I have no idea why you are attacking me as doing a disservice to Pentax when you assume I'm in favour of the K-1 II's mandatory RAW NR.

I'd like to see your list of the "many" cameras that outspec the K-1 in its price class. I believe the Sony A7 III is a better choice for some users, but what other cameras beat the K-1/K-1 II in their price class?

I would have thought that it is commonly accepted practice to support the lens with one's left hand. With such a grip aimed to maximise stability and the viewfinder against one's head, I don't have any trouble whatsoever to achieve sharp handheld shots with my K-1.

In contrast, one sees many shooters using their MILC's at arm's length, sometimes one handed. Even if the camera/lens physics support this in terms of physical strain, it is not a good idea for obtaining sharp hand-held shots, is it?

I fully realise that one can use stable hand-holding techniques for MILCs as well. I dispute your notion, though, that grip size and camera ergonomics don't matter. Fuji just released a camera that was intentionally designed to provide better purchase. Do the Fuji engineers not know what they are doing?

As you were talking about the laws of physics: Isn't it correct that a system with higher mass is harder to disturb than a lighter system?

Wouldn't this suggest that a substantial camera body is not a just a good idea to withstand the elements and provide resilience to less than favourable treatment, but also to help with stabilising hand-held shots?

Of course this comes at the expense of portability and perhaps even at the expense of durability on behalf of the photographer. However, would you categorically deny a higher system weight any advantage? If not, why do your reviews do not mention the full trade-offs?

You wrote "So your opinion as to whether or not we should do the reshoot is whether or not it will 'help' the K-1 II?

Well, that directly speaks to your bias."

Your question apparently was a rhetorical in nature because you answered it yourself.

For your information, I of course do not base my opinion on what should be done or not done on whether it helps the K-1 II. This is your invention.

The reason why I suggested to not "waste your time" (using your words) is because you are apparently not doing the reshoots out of your own volition. So I think it is natural to ask whether it is worth doing the reshoots if you won't appease most Pentaxians anyhow.

I agree with you that the reshoots are not necessary to come to your RAW NR assessment as one does not have to use the problematic areas. Again, I agree with your negative assessment and truly hope your discussion with Ricoh will be fruitful and give us the option of untreated RAW files.

Do you agree that we agree on many more points than you thought we would?

I concur with many of your statements and agree with you that the K-1 II deserves a lower score than the K-1. Hopefully, Ricoh will come to their senses and will give us an option to turn off the "accelerator" treatment. Hopefully, you can use your weight to convince them.

I fully realise that, for instance, Eye-AF is a very desirable feature and I applaud Sony for their research and development. I have many Sony products at home myself and, again, do not think you have a "Sony" bias.

We disagree on whether or not you are going too far to point out that Pentax DSLRs were not made for people who are better served with MILCs. We seem to disagree on the notion that there are people who are better served with optical viewfinders and that it is uncalled for to unconditionally evaluate a camera for stills photography as a video camera.

I very much welcome that your are planning heading towards more objective and transparent reviewing criteria.

I 100% agree with your attitude of serving readers instead of manufacturers. This, however, includes keeping all reader perspectives in mind, not just write to those readers whose preferences align with MILCs.

This responsibility also includes not unjustifiably harming a manufacturer more than is indicated. If your reviewing helps to eradicate the Pentax brand, it will have been a disservice in two ways:

1. There are readers for which Pentax cameras are genuinely the best choice. They don't choose them because they cannot see the advantages of other brands, but because Pentax delivers the best trade-offs for them. I hope you can accept this.

2. Other companies will have less competition to deal with. Pentax has always pushed others to offer products at more affordable prices and has many innovations to their name.

FWIW, I wish the RAW NR processing on the Pentax KP would have been called out for what it is: Undesirable, unless optional.

Perhaps Ricoh was even encouraged by the enthusiastic reception of their RAW manipulation in the KP to a point of going forward with a respective K-1 II update? I believe they must have always planned an "accelerator" addition to the K-1 but perhaps they wouldn't have gone ahead with it if the KP would have taught them a lesson?

Personally, I don't care that much what products at the level of a KP do, as long as there are flagship products that provide uncompromised performance.

I do wonder though, if Ricoh did something wrong with the K-1 II "accelerator" processing they did right with the KP, because DPReview highly praised the latter.

I imagine, the KP was tested somewhat superficially, so that the RAW denoising/blurring cheat wasn't discovered as such. Instead, the testers may have attributed the low noise falsely to the sensor performance alone. Whereas nobody did look out for the detail destruction as the collateral damage of forced RAW denoising.

So, the noise cheating maneuver was successful from Ricoh's perspective.

Now that Ricoh saw they could get away with their cheat being undiscovered, they deployed it to the K-1 II as well. But this time, maybe the cheating level was even stronger, and/or Rishi was reviewing the K-1 II with a higher diligence than when the KP was reviewed once by his colleagues.

So, the denoising cheat was discovered for the K-1 II, but not yet for the KP.

Then, the KP review should be amended with a detail destruction analysis (bclaff's), and with the help of new insights from that, the KP's score should lowered accordingly.

I had a look. Actually, the RAW denoising cheat was already discovered for the KP in its review

"There are clear signs of noise reduction upon further analysis of the Raw (the green channel shows blotches of no detail where other cameras do not). And this comes at a cost - sometimes decreased detail, and odd cross-hatch patterning throughout the image."

But what follows then, is the most absurd sentence I saw from DPR staff to date:

"Thanks to the noise reduction, it even punches above its sensor size and price bracket, showing a similar performance to a D750, outperforming the X-T2 by nearly a stop, and coming close to the a7R II. All in all, Ricoh has done an excellent job squeezing out as much performance as possible from the KP's sensor."

This is such a bizarre conclusion that I'm stunned. It is simply a RAW denoising cheat, so yes, of course, noise is lower then. But that this simple achievement is attributed with terms such as "excellent job" and "squeezing out as much performance as possible" makes me wonder, if this bias in favour for Pentax was fuelled by money or genuine negligence about what the purpose of RAW is all about.

It doesn't re-iterate, that this "excellent job" comes at the expense of destroying details like with any denoising.

I can shift the noise slider in Adobe ACR myself a little, like any child could do within a second. This wouldn't make me proud of having done an "excellent job of squeezing out as much performance as possible" , because I would see that it would have also destroyed details.

And I could apply this ACR trick to any other RAW file of any other camera as well, with the same effects.

Not to forget, the denoising quality of Pentax is unbelievably sloppy, because it introduces an "odd cross-hatch patterning throughout the image." These degradations are then baked into the RAWs irrevocably.

This is the other reason, why denoising of RAWs should be done in PC Software, which has access to superior algorithms, which in turn depend on superior processing power, and are engineered and refined by better programmers.

This article is interesting and still available via google. This is from the conclusion of that article 2 years ago:

"Overall, the results of this test were honestly a bit disappointing. I think that everyone here, myself included, had hoped that Pentax was able to get the Pixel Shift movement issues we saw in the K3-II resolved, but it looks as though the company still has a lot of work to do."

"for landscape work (assuming anything short of totally still conditions) artifacts caused by movement in the scene almost negate the benefits."

This seems perfectly in line with the recent findings about the K-1 II's handheld pixel shift fail, where it was confirmed another time that the movement detection fails with artefacts, making it useless for scenes (such as landscapes or cities with trees) where every leaf, every twig, every water surface moves a little.

It was further found in the K-1 II review, that the alternative workflow available for every camera, doing a series and letting photoshop combine the images at higher true resolution, is superior to handheld pixelshift in every aspect (higher physical resolution, less artefacts, less noise).

I wonder if this doesn't only apply to handheld pixelshift, but also to tripod pixelshift?

I suggest, that next time (if there ever will be a Mark III) this should be looked into further.

The true "secret sauce" of pixelshift is actually not the pixel shifting, but the special sharpening (aliasing = aligning motiv structures with pixel boundaries). This in turn is also a source for artefacts, which may be subject to further analyses.

Another source of artefacts stems from the limited precision of the sensor movement, which affects tripod pixel shift as well. This can result in dotted pixels along edges, which reminded me on those artefacts of primitive demosaicking algorithms decades ago.

@Alex SarbuIndeed, it is the article in which they innitially failed to realise that Adobe's support for Pixel Shift was incomplete, but criticised Pentax for the bad results.

The K-1 review still features the Cons "Limited uses for Pixel Shift Resolution ... (static environments)" which one does not find with other cameras that also support Pixel Shift and thus suffer from the same limitation. To DPReview's credit, the K-1 II Cons do not contain that bullet point anymore, but the fact remains that the summative criticism is not consistently applied.

I don't understand either, how the point about the 6D II's "AF joystick" comment is meant to work as a refutation of my criticism. The K-1 receives explicit criticism regarding the lack of a "dedicated AF point selector". The 6D II is just said to have a mushy four-way controller. There is no explicit criticism of a lack of a dedicated AF point selector. The K-1 II gets away with it as well. That's inconsistent summative criticism.

The differences between the A7rIII and K-1 I are very subtle though. Hard pixelpeeping. Yes, already the K-1 I is worse than the Sony, but only very subtly. The K-1 II is the one really falling behind, and the Nikon D850 the one really standing out.

However, having (or wanting to have) 36 megapixels is only all about pixelpeeping (or super micro detail peeping). There is no other mission attached to 36+ megapixels.

For those which find that absurd and irrelevant, for those is having 36 megapixels absurd and irrelevant ;)

I also recognized, that you secretly "downgraded" the Sony model to the old A7r of 2013, possibly to accommodate the fact that Pentax is far behind competition time-wise. That Pentax is there, where Sony once was with its old A7R 5 years ago.

I changed that to the A7R II. That is old as well, but already displays superiority over Pentax (both Pentaxes). For the same budget.

Since we are dealing with a cheating algorithm after all, this may play a role. In your crop, the hair received a darkening contrast push.

I assume this Photoshop/Lightroom-like details push is a purposeful cheat to increase the perception of crispness of RAWs.

The flat gray patches are not darker! So it looks like a local-detail contrast push cheat, which is supposed to mitigate the blur damage from the denoising a little. Interesting insight. Thank you, I'll bring it up as a top level comment maybe.

I'm really grateful for this portrait, it is an excellent honey pot trap for cheats of many kinds.

dptroll,There is zero evidence of detail loss at higher ISO in the K-1 II that is worse than the K-1 . Please post two links of the same area at different ISOs. I'll wait.

For all the links you have offered as "proof", when I switch back to ISO 100, there is just little noticeable difference. The best you can say is that higher MP cameras have more sharpness. Duh! Your links don't in any way provide evidence of visible damage by NR algorithms in the K-1 II.

If you want to show the visible difference, how about comparing the K-1 II at ISO 400 and 800 . The former wouldn't have NR, later would, according to DPR.I defy you to find a spot where this effect is noticeable.

I think Pentax is a brand that looks back. That's part of their culture. Years ago I saw a video on Youtube of an interview with a Pentax manager (John Carlson IIRC) at a photography trade fair regarding a new camera, and the interviewer asked "so, what's new and cool about this camera?" to which he responded "I'll tell you what's old and cool: the compatibility with all our K-mount lenses". That compatibility is not a bad thing, but that answer to that question tells you something about Pentax.

Especially after Sigma and Tamron had turned away from Pentax regarding recent great lenses. Sigma did so 3-4 years ago, Tamron since much longer years. They can't come to rescue any longer. The successless K-1 couldn't change their mind.

Being on Pentax K-Mount has become a burden this way. Pentax own selection turned into a lens museum mainly, with is not up to contemporary performance standards of e.g. Sigma ART, Sony G-Master, Tamron SP, Fuji X, etcetera.

The newer 15-30 and 24-70 zooms are relabeled Tamron's, with the optical stabilization removed, and penalized with a price surcharge.

That's not a strong position any longer. Many who think they "need" 36 megapixels for ~2000 would be better off with Nikon D810 + Tamron originals, and a huge choice of other lenses from many makers.E.g. 13 Sigma ARTs for Nikon instead of only 1 for Pentax.

The idea is that the lens shouldn't matter at all, as long as a manufacturer is capable of producing at least one prime lens which outresolves the sensor.

With such a lens, cameras shall be comparable even across brand boundaries, which is the main mission of a site like DPR. Cross brand comparisons with different lenses is just normal.

However, that Pentax is obviously not capable to produce a single prime lens, which could outresolve the sensor (except only in the very centre of the frame maybe), that is the actual root cause of the problem. Because both lenses are sub-standard. None of these are up to what Nikon's and Sony's deliver in the scene.

It is always is a grief if you only have access to old/bad lens designs for a high-res camera. Because it restricts you (and DPR) to only use the scene center to come to conclusions (such as the RAW blurring).

Actually, the higher ISOs are not absurd. I have shot thousands of pictures at night in low-light at ISO 3200 and 6400 with my K-30 over the years. And I look forward to shooting many thousands more at 12800 and 25600 on the my 1 II. Even 51,200 looks usable if you don't print too large or crop too much.

Honestly, I am not seeing anything unsatisfactory with the K-1 II or K-1 pictures in that link of yours. The D850 and Sony pictures are sharper in the beard, but that's expected for cameras that have 50MP and 42MP, vs the 36MP of the K-1 and K-1 II . Those Nikon and D850 cameras also cost 60% more. I'm sure if the K-1 II cost >$3000, it would feature a sensor of with more than 36MP. It doesn't make too much sense to compare bodies that have a 60% difference in cost.

Compare them with a body around the same price, like A7 III, D850, 6D Mark II.

The K-1 is pretty overpriced. If you see the entire system, which includes lenses ;) By now, a D810+lenses would cheaper but better than K-1 I/II+lenses.

Because Sigma and Tamron gave up all hope on Pentax future, they don't supply their recent and great lenses any longer for Pentax K. E.g. 1 (one) FF ART for Pentax, vs 14 for Canon.

So that the lens choice for pentax is mainly a lens museum, substandard performance with overpriced monopoly prices (especially all the old primes).

Because Ricoh seemingly can't do engineer decent lenses on their own, they have to ask Tamron to make them on their behalf. The two most important ones (15-30, and 24-70) are taken directly out of Tamron's shelf, and stripped down a little (optical stabilization removed).

I don't know about the other few new lenses. I think it is most likely and plausible, that these are designed by Tamron as well, but exclusively for Ricoh only. But that's speculative. I'd give it a 70% to 80% likelihood.

In summary, the K-1 II test revealed following two main take-aways:- unacceptable image quality due to forced RAW blurring even at lower ISO- Pentax can't make good prime lenses. That becomes an additional problem for testing, esp. for cross-brand comparisons (which DPR are all about).

Did you know you don't have to shoot with brand new lenses on your FF camera ? Were you aware that plenty of inexpensive film-era lenses still work well on a 36MP sensor ?

And that every single one will be stabilized, even MF and ME lenses, or any lens from any mount you choose to adapt to your Pentax K-1 / K-1 II body , which means you don't need to spend as much money on fast, heavy or stabilized glass as you otherwise might ?

Were you cognizant that great high-ISO performance on Pentax K-1 / K-1 II make such heavy and expensive fast glass even less needed ?

Did it occur to you that people choose Pentax bodies because of these attributes, and precisely because they can achieve as good or better exposure for much less with a Pentax + lenses than a Nikon FF + lenses, or Canon FF + lenses, or especially Sony FF + lenses ?

@dpthoughts seriously you should stop take a moment and reflect on the amount of stupidity you post here. You show an amazing dedication at expressing your limited knowledge of the subject. Maybe quality doesn't work for you, try quality for a change.

Sigma 28-300 f3.5 - 6.3 . $60.49 shipped from Amazon marketplace. Missing front and back caps, hence low price. Received it today and haven't tried it yet. Been too busy feeding the trolls. I know this isn't the greatest lens in the world optically - no superzoom is, but it will be convenient at those times when I will want to shrink my K-1 II, remove its battery grip and Eneloops, and carry only a single lens. Can't beat the price.

I counted 4 primes in my lens list above, not just zooms. Yes, are my lenses are AF. Is that a negative now ? They have focus rings too. I rarely use them. I do also have one Rokinon mirror 800mm. That one is MF. And the 36MP definitely outresolves this lens. But it's still fun to use sometimes, and the stabilizer works great with it. If I print at 4x6 or or 8.5x11, I can get amazing closeups. Not so great printing larger.

And yes, many are old, cheap and plasticky.Many new lenses are expensive, and also plasticky.I don't think cheap and plasticky disqualifies lenses.K-1 II has a crop mode too if you only want 15MP. I would rather not use it, though, which is why I am selling most of my APS-C lenses.

I have been checking the sharpness of my lenses lately with the K-1 II. The worst so far is my Sigma 10-20 DC HSM f4-5.6 . Just tested it, both in crop mode, and with a 1.4x TC in FF mode. It's just soft either way. TC doesn't even hurt the image. Only hurts AF a bit.

My favorite zoom is the Sigma 70-300 APO DG. Amazes me what this cheap lens can do in FF mode.

For primes, it's a tie between DA35 and FA50/1.4 (but later has to be stopped down to 1.8 to be sharp).

The D FA 28-105 that came with the camera is pretty good. Just not wide enough on the lower end. I thought the Tamron 1.4 TC could save my Sigma 10-20, but it could not. And no $$$ for a Pentax 15-30.

DA40 2.8 is OK in FF, but a tiny pancake lens like that makes more sense on a small crop body than an FF. Main advantage of that lens is the size, but an FF camera is not small no matter what lens is attached. Especially since I like to shoot my K-1 II with the battery grip.

What lenses would you put on your 36MP camera, if you didn't have more than, say, $1200 budget for all your lenses other than the kit lens (which means buying used necessarily, not new) ?

Honestly, I stopped reading after this assertion ----- "The idea is that the lens shouldn't matter at all, as long as a manufacturer is capable of producing at least one prime lens which outresolves the sensor."

My my my, stop stop being a measurebator and use the God given vision !!

@madbrain I think I've asked you a few times not to make assumptions about budget options for another system you admitted not knowing very well. So before I waste any more time on this (it's really not important to me anyway), can you agree to that?

Oh, and can you also agree to let go of the "SR compensates for a fast aperture" nonsense? I think I've pointed that out to you too.

You state in the Image Quality: Overall page that "At base ISO, noise reduction to Raws is minimal and detail capture compares well to that of the a7R III", while you write in the lower part of the page that Bill Claff confirms "noise reduction in Raw at ISOs 640 and above" only, so at base ISO there is no NR (instead of "minimal"). Also, there is no paragraph in that page about the different lenses used and the soft copy/decentering of the 50mm f2.8 macro. And you should also be able to do your own Fourier transform test for noise reduction, it's not that difficult.

The most obvious solution would be to retest both cameras with the same lens copy, regardless of which lens. Or introduce a scientific test that measures the impact of noise reduction on captured detail. This would be useful for future camera reviews too.

The FA 77/1.8 is a great portrait lens but I wouldn't have thought of it as a reference lens to support camera comparisons.

Since the test shots are also used when comparing the camera to other brands, I wouldn't go back to the FA 77/1.8 because of its deliberate field curvature and general design as a portrait lens.

The only reasonable choice would be to use a reference lens like the Sigma 70/2.8 that is available in multiple mounts. If that's not an option for whatever reason, a lens that does well in the conditions of the studio scene should be used.

@rivolta, there is a mathematician who is also a forum member, he had made a good start with confirming, that the noise itself gets blurrend even at lower ISO.

That not only noise but noise-like detals get blurred, is logical and also evident in visual inspections (I like the beard of the man's portrait to the left). Maybe someone could look into maths as well, but I believe that the interest declined, for spending much effort in analysing the K-1 II scientificly.

The 'smart guys' (which could do that) have written it off probably since long. Only dumb fanboys may be left over with still an interest in the K-1 II and its RAW blurring issues, but maybe there are no smart-enough guys among them who could do scientific analyses.

The two K-1 cameras are very similar, so to emphasize subtle image quality differences, the conditions should be as controlled as possible. Meaning testing the two cameras with the same lens copy and the same illumination pattern. You tell us to look only at the very center of the image, but this sounds nonsensical, considering the complexity of the studio scene which was introduced to test various qualities of the image acquisition and processing pipeline. I should only look at the Siemens star? Already very close to the center, the fluffy colored balls at the right are very different, with a much lower accutance in the K-1 II images, and starting at ISO 100. Furthermore, the average user will make an impression on the camera by looking at the test scene without reading your buried comments here about looking only at the center part.

At the risk of ire from both sides, I'll say that Pentax is caught between a rock and a soft place, with the latter increasingly at risk of becoming a hard place.

On the one hand, Pentax has significant problems stemming from its low market share, which means not only currently-low sales and profits, but also a much smaller base than the market leaders over which to amortize future product development.

OTOH, Pentax still has a significant base of fans, for many reasons. Some are fans because of certain product features -- some of which are innovative, some quirky leftovers of yesteryear, some uncommon at a certain price point. Some are fans because of nostalgia. But as with fans in any sphere, mistakes or omissions may be forgiven, but only up to a certain point.

I think this sharpness reduction issue is real. But it also needs to be established unequivocally how big of a real-world problem it is. And if it is, Pentax must correct it, or trust, and fans, will be irrevocably lost.

You are aware the lens used in K1-ii is not sharp across the frame, especially the upper right corner is really soft right? If the lens used in the studio scene is defective, how can you or anyone draw a negative conclusion with big question mark surrounding the quality of the lens used? I did my quick study here:

I'm going to quote Pentax themselves from the K-1 Special site and just leave it at that...

“There are many ways to assess image quality. PENTAX has traditionally stayed away from the kind of image quality defined solely by excellent numerical assessment. It is probably because we regard sensory evaluation much more highly than most people would imagine.”

Another example of this would be the FA Limiteds, they test relatively badly but return images with what Pentaxian's term pixie dust, beautiful OOF transitions, fabulous 3D pop and wonderful colour rendition.

To me this sounds a lot like high-end audio, where instead of relying on solid, scientific measurements, we get things like “this cable sounds better than that one. It has more black and a more homogeneous sound”.

This is the problem with sensory evaluations: they are inherently subjective. I have participated in blind tests between a 180 euro amplifier and an 1800 euro amplifier and could not tell the difference. Had the test not be conducted blind, I’m not sure what I would have said.

I do know that I just want good lenses for reasonable prices. I think there is an inherent danger to appropriating almost magical properties to any piece of gear, in that it starts being about the gear, and not about the photography.

Let fanboys stop blaming the DPR. This goes way over the top. Everyone may have some faults, but DPR cannot be constantly blamed for the unflattering results of the Pentax reviews. The manufacturer has a LOT to be blamed for, they are NOT doing their best.

All points to the evidence that they are skimming, trying to pass through with as little effort as possible, as little commitment as possible. As a whole package consisting of a camera, lenses and the experience of both, DPR's review is spot on – Ricoh delivered not so stellar total package.

Ltd lenses are mechanically obsolete, are not up to modern critical use; the camera is not a value in terms of upgrade; overall experience may be a disappointment compared to competition. And it is definitely not DPR's fault that Ricoh hasn't found time all these years to make a modern nifty-fifty lens with modern motors & smooth mechanics, to even out results and be ready for critical use on a 36 MP DSLR, and tests like these.

The 77 Limited is one of the greatest portrait lenses ever made and I and many others do not need a test chart to validate this viewpoint! Pentax doesn't have the R&D resources of Sony or Canon, but they do pretty well with what they have. A camera is a tool to make pictures and Pentax always provides robust build quality, great image quality, etc for an affordable price.The 50mm behemoth lens you are wishing for is coming out this summer and I'm sure it will be absolutely GREAT for shooting test charts to make Rishi and the gang happy! :)Here is another example for you: I own both the Sigma 35 Art 1.4 and the Pentax 43 Limited 1.9.The Sigma is indisputably SHARPER than the Limited overall, especially shooting wide open or close to it. But the 43 is the lens I prefer to carry around with me because it weighs about 1/5th of the Sigma and makes my K-1 feel like a much smaller camera. And the image quality in the center 2/3 of the frame is much closer than you would imagine.

My K-1 II does just fine optically with an old film-era FA50/1.4, or even DA50/1.8. The later is an APS-C lens but actually works fine in crop mode. These may not be modern lenses, but they work fine. I don't shoot test shots for a living with everything in the same focal plane, though, so can't really evaluate their uniformity. But nearly large part of the K-1 II images in the upper half seem blurred and out of focus, which seem like a problem with either the lens or focus/alignment.

The studio test scene is not a lens test. We make it clear that our assessments of the cameras' image quality are made from analysis of the central - sharpest - area of the test scene. As such, if anything, the K-1 II was at an advantage compared to the K-1 since the 50mm macro is slightly sharper than the lens we used for the older model.

Barney: I'm genuinely curious about this. My impression has always been that the 77 is as sharp in the center of the frame as just about any lens in existence, especially at F5.6 - F8. Macro lenses are typically designed for better corner to corner sharpness at the expense of maximum center resolution, so if this notion is true it would be a pretty unique situation. I would love to see a side by side lens test comparing a 77 Limited and 50 Macro on the same body!

Barney, it's great that you examined the sharp center area for your evaluation. However, after you posted your conclusions that the IQ was inferior in the K-1 II at higher ISOs, many many people went pixel peeping the images of each camera. And found that many parts of the K-1 II image were actually blurred. This is true regardless of ISO, so it has nothing to do with the body's noise reduction . Just look in the upper right quadrant. I have looked at many DPR reviews and can't find any modern DSLR camera tested with a lens with such poor uniformity, or poorly aligned/focused - whichever it is. I think it's really a disservice to your readers to post test shots with massive problems such as these, even if those blurred parts didn't factor into your conclusions. People who will want to verify them who look at your test shots will look at all parts of them, not just the sharp center.

Barney, it's not me you need to tell that to, but just about every reader who read your review and is pixel peeping the two cameras. You only need to look at the comments in this forum. Time after time, commenters are reaching conclusions about lack of sharpness that are due to looking in those areas.

I have yet to see a single comment from someone looking in the sharp areas and commenting that the NR makes the picture look worse than the K-1 at high ISOs.

@madbrainNot a Pentax user for fan by any means, but just happen to be reading this article.

I agree in general pixel peepers look at the whole picture and never just look at the center. In particular I know that for low light detail, people tend to look at the feathers and grass sections nearer the corners of which the K-1 II looks significantly more blurred (even at ISO 100 where NR should play almost no role).

The article should make it extremely clear that the two test scenes were shot with different lenses with one significantly less sharp in the corners (and perhaps even some differences in center). Otherwise it's quite a bit misleading as the reasonable assumption by most people would have been that the same lens was used and differences are all from the sensor processing.

@Barney BrittonWhy do you make the full image available for inspection if people are not supposed to use anything but the centre portion?

The comparison tool description provides no hints regarding the notion that anything outside the corner is not quality controlled by DPReview.

There is no caveat regarding the fact that different lenses are used either. Note that a lens like the Sigma 70/2.8 exists in multiple mounts and could thus eliminate differences regarding t-stop, field curvature, etc.

Agree in general, but using the exact same lens for all cameras may not make sense. Most users will be shooting with native lenses, not third party lenses which may have neither AF nor auto exposure when using adapters. I know the DPR camera exposure settings are manual, so AE isn't an issue for the test. Not sure if the focusing is done manually by DPR or automatically with AF. If AF is no good, then that's a sign of a problem with the lens. Lens AF adjustments can be made in camera if one wants to use AF for shooting tests. If that still doesn't work, then the lens is just out of spec and shouldn't be used.

Anyway, the shots should definitely quality controlled not just in the center. If more than 50% of the image is soft and with parts blurred or plain out of focus, that's a sign that something is really wrong with the optics, and the images shouldn't be posted without at least trying other lenses.

Even within the same mount - ie. Pentax K - the same lens will have a different field of view between APS-C and FF, so you can't use the same lens one for each.

But if you are going to make sweeping statements like "camera X has worse IQ than camera Y", and they have the same mount and sensor size, you damn better use either the same lens or one comparable in quality (and by that, I don't mean use the same bad lens for each).

I agree with most of what you say, but I don't agree with the argument "Most users will be shooting with native lenses, not third party lenses which may have neither AF nor auto exposure when using adapters."

If the camera comparison tool is meant to support the comparison of cameras then it does not make sense to use different lenses. Native lenses make sense for galleries, but they don't make sense for a tool meant to compare cameras.

The Sigma 70/2.8 Macro supports AF on all systems and in any event such test shots should be manually focussed.

On that subject, I don't understand why the FA 77/1.8 shows so much purple fringing. The lens is prone to do that near wide open, but I don't think it should do that stopped down and normally purple fringing requires a bit of misfocus. I haven't tried to use the FA 77/1.8 as in such circumstances but I'm wondering whether it could have performed better with different settings/focus.

I thought you were suggesting to use the exact same lens on all systems for testing, not a different version of the same lens model made for each mount. Ie. use the exact same copy and optics. That would necessarily require adapters, except for the camera system for which the lens is native.

I'm not familiar enough with all the different types of mounts, but in general Tmount lenses can be adapted to just about any camera for example. Canon can be adapted to Pentax, but you lose AF and AE. Pentax can be adapted to m4/3, but you lose AF and AE. Not sure what is the "most universal" type of lens. But this isn't what you were discussing.

I didn't notice the purple fringing, but didn't look for it carefully either. I have never owned the FA 77 or the Sigma 70/2.8 .

I think in general, you want to test with a quality lens. Not a perfect lens, since none exists, but something that makes sense for the camera type. But not lens that's so clearly inferior to what was used in previous tests.

We once tried a 3rd party lens, getting copies for all mounts, only to find that it stopped down its aperture to slightly different degrees based on mount.

It's just not as simple as some here would make it out to be.

Regarding the question of why we make our whole studio scene available for analysis if not all parts of it are sharp: because our scene is not just a sharpness test. It also assesses color, noise, noise reduction, etc. Every test has its limits and flaws, and being aware of them means you can still draw many valid conclusions from imperfect data.

I wonder if you also think we should limit portions of the Sony a7R III shots to only allow viewing of sharp regions? I doubt it. We work within the limits of our tests, & there are still valid conclusions you can draw despite different portions of the scene being softer or sharper for various cameras.

There are limits to our tests. We'll be the 1st to admit it. We're improving processes, but there'll always be limits.

I always saw the crowd's lens usage complaints as a maneuver to deviate from the RAW denoising / blurring cheating.

That is not about, how sharpness changes from the center towards the edges with bad lenses. But it is about, how sharpness changes from low to high ISO at a given fixed point in the scene.

To keep DPR staff shielded against the usual fanboy wrath, I suggest that the test scene gets amended with denoising cheating traps.

- a sequence of patches with Photoshop-generated pure noise with increasing strength levels.- The patches are printed with the highest resolution possible. - placed very near to the center, so that lens makers which are not capable of making uniformly performing prime lenses (such as Pentax) are regarded a little.

These noise patches would be suitable for visual inspection (how does the camera attempt to cheat or otherwise modify its appearance, esp. removing detail). And also for formal frequency distribution analyses.

@DPR:I'm afraid you cannot stop people from looking at the upper-right corner.You're publishing the entire image; any part of that image, and usually the part with the largest differences, will be used for comparing "cameras".

Also, you had no warning about a large part of the images being useless.

How many third party lens models did you try? One model showing irregularities does not invalidate the approach. Also, the minor deviations created through varying apertures should create a lot less variance than you have currently. Have you measured the t-stop (not f-stop) differences between all the OEM lenses?

You wrote "It's just not as simple as some here would make it out to be." I'm not sure who claimed anything is "simple". It is not that hard, though, to improve on your standards.

You wrote "...our scene is not just a sharpness test."Do you realise that it is used as one? There is no disclaimer whatsoever associated with the tool. I don't know how you can pretend to be unaware of all the invalid conclusions people are drawing from the tool. Plaster it with disclaimers and caveats and then you may avoid some of the issues. Currently, it is a huge mess.

You wrote "There are limits to our tests. We'll be the 1st to admit it. " Sadly, that is simply not true.

"You wrote "It's just not as simple as some here would make it out to be." I'm not sure who claimed anything is "simple". It is not that hard, though, to improve on your standards."

Actually, yes it is. First, to get a 'perfect' lens, you have to define what 'perfect' is, because it doesn't theoretically exist. For primes, you either choose high central sharpness, or overall field uniformity. Rarely do you have both.

Second, you need to test many, many copies of lenses, ideally using an optical bench, to even define 'best' or 'average', for high central sharpness or field uniformity. Obviously we don't have that capacity, so we're trying to start a collaboration with Roger Cicala to do so. He's invested years of research, millions of $$, that we will hopefully get to benefit from. I certainly wouldn't call that 'Not that hard'.

Finally, for optimal focus, you need a motorized rail that moves the camera mm and reshoots the entire scene. From the 1000s of images, you need to write software/a script that measures MTF for each set, then chooses the images with the highest MTF. Those would then be processed and uploaded to our widget.

It's a huge effort, and though we we're working towards it, it's certainly not 'not that hard'.

""There are limits to our tests. We'll be the 1st to admit it. " - I remember strong denial, until other DPR staff stepped in."

Denial? I immediately pointed out the limitations of our scene, and how we worked around them to make sure our actual conclusions were still valid. They are, and they will be even after we reshoot the scene.

You seem to have a preformed narrative in your head about who performed what role in this review and its aftermath. You may wish to be open to your preformed narrative being incorrect. I was actually the 1st to reach out to others to verify our results, and the 1st to suggest we reshoot both the K1 and K1 II with the same (new) lens to help readers more easily draw the same conclusions we already have.

We as a team discussed and came to an agreement that it would be worth devoting our extremely limited editorial resources to doing so, and have continued discussions with Pentax to request it address the issues we've found - for the benefit of Pentaxians.

How can you possibly draw definite conclusions with the test data from two different lenses, different conditions, which you just finished admitting is hugely flawed? Is it a hunch? It's the way your conclusion was presented that's caused this huge stir. It was presented in the writing as a fact, a certainty, etc, with no wiggle room or room for interpretation of any kind, but you yourself admit that the data to back that up is not there. So how was this definite conclusion reached? Maybe your own "preformed narrative"/ aka bias? We all have bias and are not always consciously aware of it. Ask yourselves this question honestly.

"I was actually the 1st to reach out to others to verify our results, and the 1st to suggest we reshoot both the K1 and K1 II with the same (new) lens to help readers more easily draw the same conclusions we already have."

@Rishi SanyalI don't know whose arguments you are trying to refute, but they are not mine. I never said you need to attain perfection, use optical collimators to identify the "perfect" lens, or anything like that.

I only said, it is not that hard to improve on your current standard, in this case, to avoid the significant issues you had with the lens on the K-1 II. You don't need to invest "millions of dollars" to simply reject a lens that obviously performs badly.

Why not delay the publication of a review if your distributor or Ricoh cannot provide a decent (no need for perfection) copy immediately? If readers are asking why it is taking so long to get the review out, simply point to your trouble with sourcing an appropriate lens copy.

"How can you possibly draw definite conclusions with the test data from two different lenses, different conditions, which you just finished admitting is hugely flawed? Is it a hunch?"

If camera A starts off with more sharpness/contrast at base ISO than camera B, but then ends up with lower sharpness/contrast at higher ISOs than camera B, and no refocusing has been done in between shots, then one can safely conclude that camera A suffers from lower sharpness/contrast than camera B at higher ISOs.

I've seen enough conclusive evidence in other tests and in contributions to this discussion to confirm that the fault lies with focus. Most likely a defective lens but maybe even an error in the set up.

Either way, the review unfairly damages the reputation of the camera. From what I can have seen, K-1ii noise reduction is an improvement over the K-1.

No, the blame is on the manufacturer, 100%. Let's think the other way round: is it DPR's fault for using old screwdrive lenses for the test? No. Ricoh has not provided – up to the time of this review – one single available modern 50mm prime with motors and mechanics good enough to nail the focus for this kind of camera and testing. Or, to operate smoother than the Ltd prime lenses, which are NOT the best manual focusing lenses in the world. Judged by a complete package of a camera and lenses and experience, this is more than fair review. It is SPOT ON.

"I've seen enough conclusive evidence in other tests and in contributions to this discussion to confirm that the fault lies with focus. Most likely a defective lens but maybe even an error in the set up."

This is untrue. If anything, the K-1 II has a slight advantage in our test setup compared to the K-1 since the 50mm macro is the sharper lens (in the middle, where it counts, and where we actually look when we make our analysis).

Barney, what's the point of posting full test shots of the scene if only the center is sharp ? Either post just a crop of the center part, or use a sharper lens, or focus it better. At least 50% of each test image is useless for comparison purposes due to the softness/focus problem.

Great ! I hope you can reveal what they tell you. Many have speculated about whether the accelerator could or could not be turned off in a firmware update. Since it seems to only be in effect at ISO >640, and ISO is a setting that can be changed by the user, I would think so. The question is whether they will consider it a defect or not. IMO, after your review, it certainly makes sense to make it conditional, ie. apply it after a user-configurable ISO threshold rather than a fixed one. Though personally, I have to say I like the cleaner images of the K-1 II. I have never gotten results as good using noise reduction in post. Those usually blur the images. And the K-1 II high ISO images - at least lower part of the images - do not look blurred to me, even at 100% crop.

Also details in the vertical center are blurred as well, because this comes from the camera, not only from the available lens quality.Look for example at the beard stubbles of the portrait to the left. compare it to a good camera of the same resolution, e.g. Nikon D810. Doesn't have to be the far superior D850 or A7rIII.

Because the beard's delicate details are as delicate as noise details, it is a really good honey-pot trap, for any denoising cheating attempts of any camera body.

Good to see at moderately high ISO levels, e.g. 1600, so that delicate details are not drowning in noise yet.

I used to be a Pentax fan but I think they've fallen into irrelevance. This half baked non upgrade just confirms it for me. Would've been better expanding their lens line up..at least that would've generated some sort of momentum.

I'm of the opinion that Pentax (and other makers) has been "baking in" noise reduction in raw files for quite some time now. I first noticed this in their K-01 and later in their K-30. Canon's 5D Mk II did the same, and other photogs agree, but Canon has yet to acknowledge this. I wouldn't at all be surprised if this was the case with a great many cameras and camera makers.

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle guarantees we can't measure the signal without affecting it but that effect would be pretty small :-)There's a big difference between what is done to an individual pixel and what we normally call "noise reduction".Correlated Double Sampling (CDS), noise shaping, and other techniques are applied at the pixel level; and are welcome.But consulting neighboring pixels to reduce noise always results in a loss of spatial information and that should be up to the photographer; not "baked in".

@madbrain. I have not published my K-P results yet but they look a lot like the K-1 II with NR at ISO 640. The K-30 starts at 1600 but is not so strong. I'm trying to get K-70 (and K-S1) results.You can always check PhotonsToPhotos PDR chart to see what I already know.Always happy to work with people that have other cameras to get results.

dpthoughts, your comments are genuinely interesting, I agree there is something eyecatching about Sony and Fuji camera design.

I think, however, that these are actually an illustration of Function Follows Form, the faux prism that tops these cameras refers to an element that these bodies purposefully lack, the sharp edges and other aspects of the design are not ideal for handling or ergonomics. In summary the Sony and Fuji bodies' appeal is more to do with nostalgia than functionalism. That said, the small form is clearly a plus - unless the body is attached to a fast zoom lens when the combination looses handling balance.

Design awards? Need I say any more than K-01! I really do like Marc Newson's design of camera, especially the yellow and storm-trooper versions, but possibly 90% of photographers would disagree with me.

Opinions on design are, of course, subjective. Barry thinks Pentax make ugly cameras. To me, the K-1 and K-01 are, for different reasons, well designed

I wouldn't say that Pentax make ugly cameras.The K-7 to K-3 were fine, I even found the K10D-K20D likeable.

Maybe "ugly" is to harsh for the K-1 but I don't think that the K-1 is eye-pleasing, at least on product photos. It is very retro and conservative, and looks hulky even though it isn't actually bigger than a big Nikon.

But I saw even Fuji making ugly cameras. I don't like the X-T20 for example, too retro just for being retro, I doesn't look as modern nor as elegant like the other Fuji X.

I agree somewhat with your form follows function. Yes, Fuji and Sony had a high priority on being pleasing for the eye. If they were only after ergonomics, then they could have make them look like superzoom bridge cams, i.e. very round with very deep grips.

But they didn't want their cams to look like that on purpose, I'm sure.

One of the most keenly-awaited lenses for a while, the new Pentax D FA* 50mm F1.4 is finally here, and we've been using it for a few days. In this article, we're updating our initial impressions on the basis of our recent shooting with the K-1 II.

Latest in-depth reviews

The Leica Q2 is an impressively capable fixed-lens, full-frame camera with a 47MP sensor and a sharp, stabilized 28mm F1.7 Summilux lens. It's styled like a traditional Leica M rangefinder and brings a host of updates to the hugely popular original Leica Q (Typ 116) that was launched in 2015.

The Edelkrone DollyONE is an app-controlled, motorized flat surface camera dolly. The FlexTILT Head 2 is a lightweight head that extends, tilts and pans. They aren't cheap, but when combined these two products provide easy camera mounting, re-positioning and movement either for video work or time lapse photography.

Are you searching for the best image quality in the smallest package? Well, the GR III has a modern 24MP APS-C sensor paired with an incredibly sharp lens and fits into a shirt pocket. But it's not without its caveats, so read our full review to get the low-down on Ricoh's powerful new compact.

The Olympus OM-D E-M1X is the ultimate sports, action and wildlife camera for professional Micro Four Thirds users. However, it can't quite match the level of AF reliability offered by its full frame competitors.

Latest buying guides

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

What’s the best camera costing over $2000? The best high-end camera costing more than $2000 should have plenty of resolution, exceptional build quality, good 4K video capture and top-notch autofocus for advanced and professional users. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing over $2000 and recommended the best.

What's the best camera for shooting sports and action? Fast continuous shooting, reliable autofocus and great battery life are just three of the most important factors. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting sports and action, and recommended the best.

What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

We've updated our waterproof camera buying guide with the latest round of rugged compacts, and we've crowned a new winner as the best pick in the category: the Olympus TG-6. That is, unless you happen to find a good deal on the TG-5.

Researchers with the Samsung AI Center in Moscow and the Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology have created a system that transforms still images into talking portraits with as little as a single image.

K&R Photographics, a camera store in Crescent Springs, Kentucky, was robbed by armed men, who not only took thousands of dollars worth of camera equipment, but also injured the 70-year-old co-owner of the store.

The new Fujifilm GFX 100 boasts some impressive specifications, including 100MP, in-body stabilization and 4K video. But what's it like to shoot with? Senior Editor Barnaby Britton found out on a recent trip to Florence, Italy.

It's here! The long-awaited next-generation Fujifilm GFX has been officially launched. Click through to learn more about the camera that Fujifilm is hoping will shake up the pro photography market - the GFX100.

We've known about the Fujifilm GFX 100 since last fall, but now it's official: this 102MP medium-format monster will be available at the end of June for $10,000. In addition to its incredible resolution, the camera also has in-body IS, a hybrid AF system, 4K video and a removable EVF.

According to DJI, any drone model weighing over 250 grams will have AirSense Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) receivers installed to help drone operators know when planes and helicopters are nearby.

Chris and Jordan are kicking off a new segment in which they make feature suggestions to manufacturers for the benefit of all photographer-kind. To start things off, they take a look at the humble USB-C port and everything it could be doing for us.

The Olympus TG-5 is one of our favorite waterproof cameras, and the company today introduced the TG-6, a relatively low-key update. New features include the addition of an anti-reflective coating on the sensor, a higher-res LCD, and more underwater and macro modes.

The Leica Q2 is an impressively capable fixed-lens, full-frame camera with a 47MP sensor and a sharp, stabilized 28mm F1.7 Summilux lens. It's styled like a traditional Leica M rangefinder and brings a host of updates to the hugely popular original Leica Q (Typ 116) that was launched in 2015.

We've been playing around with a prototype of the new Peak Design Travel Tripod and are impressed so far: it's incredibly compact, fast to deploy and stable enough for the heaviest bodies. However, the price may turn some away.